Russian Humanitarian Aid Convoy Begins Journey to Luhansk - Russian Foreign Ministry

Moscow has decided to begin moving its convoy of humanitarian aid toward the eastern Ukrainian city of Luhansk and will oppose any attempts to disrupt the badly needed humanitarian mission, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Friday on its website.

“It’s impossible to bear this type of lawlessness, outright lies and inability to agree. All of the pretexts for delaying the delivery of aid to the people in the region of the humanitarian catastrophe have been exhausted. The Russian side has made the decision to act. Our column with humanitarian aid is beginning its movement toward Luhansk,” the ministry said.

Earlier, Andre Lorsch, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) public relations coordinator in Kiev, said that although the ICRC had received a guarantee of the convoy’s safe passage in the Luhansk Region, it was still concerned about the general situation in the region.

As of August 21, 34 trucks with Russian humanitarian aid have passed customs inspections at the Russian-Ukrainian border. In August, Russia suggested sending a humanitarian aid convoy accompanied by the ICRC representatives to eastern Ukraine in light of the tragic humanitarian situation there. On August 12, a convoy of 280 trucks, carrying about 2,000 tons of humanitarian aid, left Moscow Region for Ukraine.

Islamic State takes region back to the Middle Ages

http://claudesalhani.com/

By Claude Salhani -

The group known as the Islamic State that is fighting to install an Islamic Caliphate in Syria and Iraq – as a first step to expanding that caliphate – has made time travel a possibility.

Indeed, through their worse-than medieval manners of beheadings and crucifixions, torture and mass executions and the selling of captured women as slaves, they have managed to transport the areas under their dominance from a modern era of satellite imagery and stellar communications into a dark, bottomless abyss of savagery and orgies of evil probably not seen since the days when barbarians were at the gates of Rome.

Today similar bloodthirsty barbarians are knocking at the gates of modern civilization, threatening the very concept of the fragile world we live in.

Had the Internet and video recording existed in the days of the Goths, Vizigoths and the Ostrogoths they probably would have behaved similarly to the IS; video recording their monstrous acts and proudly displaying it on the Internet.

The Islamic State’s latest abominable act of brutality comes in the beheading of an American journalist, James Foley, who has been held captive in Syria since 2012, a deed that was recorded on video.

The IS claims that the killing of James Foley is in retaliation for the U.S. bombing of several of their positions in Iraq. It must also mean that these bombings have hurt them. In their utter ignorance the group fails to realize that individual Americans, like James Foley, have no say in U.S. foreign policy.

These “knights” of a hijacked faith are poisoning a decent religion with their interpretation of Islam.

Forcing a captive to “denounce” his country requires no bravery on the part of the captors. Rather it reveals the low level of their understanding of reality.

The result of this hideous act will not prevent future bombings of IS positions by the U.S. military.

Indeed, it may very well have the opposite effect as the Obama Administration understands that there can be no mid-way solution to the plague that this new stigma represents, not only for decent followers of Islam, but for the whole civilized world.

http://claudesalhani.com/2014/08/20/islamic-state-takes-region-back-to-the-middle-ages/

James Foley’s Execution: 'Death by Terror'

The reaction to the terrible death of James Foley, the freelance journalist kidnapped and executed by Islamist extremists, comes in stages. First and foremost is the grief at the cruel death of a brave reporter who knowingly risked his life to tell a critical story.

Then comes horror at the sadism of the executioner, whose accent spoke of years spent in London. Could he be one of the many young foreigners who have joined the ranks of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, attracted by the perverse romance of “holy war?”

Finally there’s the chilling knowledge that this is neither the first nor the last time we must witness the horror of a hostage kneeling before masked executioners. Seizing hostages for revenge, to terrorize, to make a political statement or to exact ransom has become a standard weapon in the arsenal of terrorists, leaving no journalist, humanitarian worker or traveler in a conflict zone immune.

All these motives appear to have figured in the fate of Mr. Foley. He was captured in Syria in November 2012, and before he was killed ISIS reportedly demanded 100 million euros ($132 million) in ransom, following Al Qaeda’s practice in recent years of raising funds by abducting foreigners. But no money was paid for Mr. Foley, and a special operation failed to find him.

After the United States began airstrikes against ISIS forces in Iraq earlier this month, the group shifted to the infamous practices of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who was known as “Sheikh of the Slaughterers” for the many foreign captives he decapitated. The masked man with the British accent who killed Mr. Foley said he was doing it in retaliation for the American airstrikes; at the end of the video that was released, he is shown holding another captive American freelance journalist, Steven Sotloff, as he says, “The life of this American citizen, Obama, depends on your next decision.”

There will be those who argue that the United States is somehow responsible for Mr. Foley’s death, either by refusing to pay a ransom or by bombing ISIS. But the history of political kidnapping suggests this is too simple. Kidnappings have been a staple of guerrilla warfare since they were popularized by Latin American revolutionaries in the 1970s, as has been the debate over whether to pay ransom. The United Nations estimated that about $30 million was paid out in ransom for political kidnappings in Latin America in 1973 alone.

The practice was exported around the world and especially to the Middle East, where many hostages, including journalists, were seized over the past decades. More recently, ransom income has played a major role in financing the Qaeda network — a recent report by Rukmini Callimachi in The Times found that more than 50 hostages have been seized by Al Qaeda over the past five years, and many have been ransomed for substantial sums paid by European governments.

Still, there have been changes in recent years. First is the cruelty of kidnapping foreigners purely to post their executions online. The beheading of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter, by a top Qaeda operative in 2002 revealed the viciousness of the Islamic fanatics, a cruelty raised to new levels by ISIS. Second, while journalists are by no means the only victims — many more humanitarian and government workers have been seized — the death of Mr. Foley and the threat to Mr. Sotloff point to the special danger faced by the freelance reporters who have become more numerous in war zones with the proliferation of Internet news sites. Without the resources, credentials or experience of established news organizations, freelancers are often at greater risk in conflict zones.

There is no simple answer on whether to submit to terrorist extortion. The United States and Britain refuse to pay ransoms, and there is evidence that hostage takers target victims based on the potential for a payout. If everyone refused to pay, terrorists might not have had the incentive to turn kidnapping into an industry. At a Group of 8 summit meeting last year, Western countries agreed not to make ransom payments, but some European governments continue the practice.

In the meantime, we can honor the many brave journalists, aid workers and civil servants who risk their lives in conflict zones, and grieve for Mr. Foley and the many others who have lost their freedom or their lives.

When will the US, Europe wake up to the threat of radical Islam?

Ben Caspit

On Aug. 19, Israel attempted to assassinate the “head of the snake” — Mohammed Deif, commander of Hamas’ military wing. As I’m writing this (on Aug. 21), it remains unclear whether the attempt succeeded. Hamas denies Deif was harmed. But there are growing indications to suggest that Deif was indeed inside the bombed building in Gaza City's Sheik Radwan neighborhood. If he was inside, there’s no way he could have survived the attack. All that was left of this multistory building is a pile of rubble. Unlike the past, this time Israel had no second thoughts about which armament to use. The building was razed with one-ton bombs to ensure that if Deif was inside, he would stand no chance of survival.

Two days later, in the early morning hours of Aug. 21, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) killed three other senior Hamas militants — Mohammed Abu Shamalah, Raed al-Attar and Mohammed Barhum. Shamalah was said to be the chief of Hamas’ “southern command,” whereas Attar was the equivalent of a brigade commander.

Is this the victory photo that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been waiting for? Is this the tiebreaker that will finally force Hamas to fold and end the current round of hostilities without having scored any significant achievements? We will find out in the coming days.

Meanwhile, it's time to deal with the broader picture, namely the watershed and grizzly affair that the world — or at least large parts of it — has experienced. “The beheading of journalist James Foley is another step before the penny finally drops in the West,” an Israeli, who until recently held a senior and central defense position, told me. “I don’t think that the West fully comprehends who we’re fighting with here. But I do think that this will happen at some point, and that it won’t be before too long.”

In recent weeks, I have been holding a series of talks with prominent Israel officials from different fields on the subject of the war against radical jihad. We discussed the rise of the Islamic State (IS) and the growing power of various jihadist groups in the region. We also broached the dismantlement of the statehood framework, which was dictated by the superpowers, in favor of tribal frameworks, primal emotions and Islamic radicalism. The war of civilization between “life seekers” and “death sanctifiers” was also addressed. And in the end, we deliberated on the question of how it's possible that, after all of this, the West still continues to bully Israel and denounce it. We also wrestled with the question how it's possible that international fact-finding commissions continue to be formed and relentless efforts are made to tie the hands of Israel, the only true democracy in this turbulent Islamic ocean.

In recent weeks, the gruesome beheadings from the school of IS burst into those discussions. The Internet makes these video clips readily accessible to any user.

All of a sudden, the bleeding hearts in the enlightened West could see what’s going on in the real world while they are talking about “human rights,” “liberties of the individual” and a bunch of other empty slogans behind which there is nothing but hypocrisy and obtuseness.

Topping this festival of barbarism: Foley's beheading.

How horrifying it was to see the images of him kneeling in the desert, and standing next to him the executioner armed with a knife. Foley recites a text dictated to him. I don’t know whether he realized that those were his last moments. I hope not. The horror reaches new heights when the anonymous executioner starts talking with a clear British accent.

Many jihadists hold British, Scandinavian, French and other nationalities. They are the children of immigrants from Islamic countries who were naturalized and educated in enlightened Europe. On the face of it, they should have become an integral part of the continent, but in reality, they have only radicalized. They travel to Syria or Iraq to take part in a jihad and to behead people.

“Dear friends in Europe, perhaps even in the United States — prepare yourselves for the return of those citizens home,'' a senior Israeli political figure told me. ''All you need to do is to listen to what they are saying there — in between the beheadings,” the source, who's well known by all European and US government officials, said. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he added, “We in Israel have learned the hard way that we would do well to listen to the Arabs. They mean what they say. They profess their intentions.”

He was alluding to the repeated threats by IS butchers and other jihadist organizations, which promise to finish off the job in Syria, Iraq and the Middle East and then move on to Europe and the United States.

“We will drown America in blood,” they say. And they mean it. They own up to their intentions almost on a daily basis.

“There is no other choice, but the rules of warfare will have to change,” a former senior Israeli military jurist told me.

“Despite the fact that those rules have been revised in recent years, this revision is still a far cry from satisfying the understandable need of enlightened democracies to fight jihadist terrorism, which sanctifies death and see civilians as a legitimate tool for murderous manipulations and human shields,” said the jurist, who dealt extensively with adapting the doctrine of the IDF to the international law of war. "In a few years’ time, the world will realize — the hard way — that there is no way of overcoming this kind of terrorism by using conventional methods.

“When terrorists stockpile their entire rocket arsenal inside kindergartens, schools, clinics and mosques, when they fire from populated areas, when they turn private residences into war rooms, when they send children to play on the rooftops of a residential building when terror leaders converge inside, it makes them practically invulnerable,” he continued. “There was a time when you could turn a blind eye to such things. Today it’s harder. In Gaza, each round with Hamas is growing more difficult and deadlier than the previous one. During the Israeli disengagement from Gaza [2005], Hamas’ first rockets were only able to reach the town of Sderot [just a few kilometers from the border]. During Operation Cast Lead [2008-09], the rockets landed as far as Ashkelon and Ashdod. During Operation Pillar of Defense [2012], they got as far as Beersheba. Today, during Operation Protective Edge, their range has been extended to Tel Aviv and even close to Haifa [in northern Israel]. They have an infinite network of assault tunnels, small drones and many more means. This is the price Israel has to pay because the world would not let it fight Hamas effectively. But Israel is just the forward outpost. Soon enough, the West will understand that it is the real target of radical Islam. Hopefully that understanding won’t come too late,” the jurist concluded.

“What’s interesting in this whole affair,” says a senior Israeli defense official, “is that our region has already understood that. The Egyptians understood this perfectly well, ahead of everybody else. After all, they had to fight Muslim Brotherhood terrorism. They still do. They know that Hamas is a slightly more civilized variation of IS. But the breeding house is the same — the Muslim Brotherhood. Jordan understands this and so does Saudi Arabia. The Gulf states, except for Qatar, understand this. Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas knows, deep down, that this kind of extremism threatens his way of life as much as it does ours. This is why moderate Egyptians and Palestinians did not let Hamas make any real gains in the negotiations in Cairo. The organization must not be allowed to have any tangible gains or otherwise it will only be incentivized to further radicalize and gain power.”

Let’s go back to my first interlocutor at the beginning of this article. “It seems to me that most leaders already understand this,” he opines. “The last one to understand this is President Barack Obama. His Cairo speech during his first term will haunt him for the rest of his life. Already now it looks like some bizarre act. In five or 10 years from now, it will look almost radical. Obama gambled on the Muslim Brotherhood as the watchdogs of democracy in the Middle East. But he, too, already knows the truth. What worries me is that the European nations have yet to understand this. It has not dawned on them yet. It’s very 'cool' to be anti-Israeli and to demonstrate for the 'liberation of Palestine' and against the 'genocide' in Gaza.

''Nobody really looks at the finer details to discover that there is no genocide in Gaza and that all Hamas needs to do to save its people is to stop shooting rockets at civilians. There is no need to liberate Palestine because there was never such a state, and because the Palestinians in Gaza got rid of the Israeli occupation nine years ago and because the Palestinians in the West Bank received full autonomy and have been rejecting for the past seven years any proposal to set up their own independent state.

''In Europe — whose 'European' flair is starting to fade — the conspicuous Islamic presence dictates this vocal wave of anti-Semitism mixed with ignorance and hatred that was enhanced through brainwashing. It is possible that one day the Europeans will understand what the real situation is and try to fix it. There’s a pretty good chance that this will happen too late. By then, the situation will be beyond repair.” That’s as far as the doomsday prophesies of my sources go. All of them are mainstream Israelis, seasoned and senior experts in their respective fields (legal, political, military). They all support the peace process and the two-state solution, but they start losing faith — not in the Palestinians but in the Europeans and the Americans — the enlightened world. And that’s dangerous.

And yet, a silver lining looms; lo and behold, even Obama starts grasping the momentous hour. What he said at a news conference on Aug. 20 following reports on Foley’s beheading would not put Netanyahu to shame. But it’s not only Obama. More and more public figures, journalists, opinion setters and large swathes of the public in the enlightened world are starting to get the picture. Articles to this effect have started appearing here and there. Will more follow? We must hope they will.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/08/james-foley-is-hamas-radical-islam-israel-us-europe.html#ixzz3B71TxHSu

Israeli NGO asks US to extradite Hamas man behind 3 teens’ murder

Terror group official in Turkey boasted about June kidnapping, killing of teens, one of whom was US citizen

Israeli legal NGO Shurat Hadin has asked US Attorney General Eric Holder to request the extradition of Turkey-based Hamas official Sheikh Saleh al-Arouri, who is believed to be responsible for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens in June, one of whom was an American citizen.

“Turkish authorities cannot allow a statement by a senior Hamas terrorist condoning and taking responsibility for the kidnapping and murder of innocent teenage boys announced on Turkish soil, and at the same time claim that Turkey is a humane country,” wrote Shurat HaDin founder Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. “Turkey is giving shelter to a terrorist who was released from prison for committing other terrorist acts, and who now brazenly announces his personal involvement in the abduction and murder of more Israeli civilians while comfortably residing in Turkey.”

Turkey and the United States have an extradition agreement between them.

Al-Arouri, a senior Hamas religious figure, was in Qatar on Thursday for the meeting held between exiled political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal, Palestinian Authority President Mahmou Abbas and the Qatari emir, Channel 2 reported.

Al-Arouri is heard on a video that surfaced Wednesday saying that he “blessed the heroic action” which was “carried out by the al-Qassam Brigades” — the armed wing of Hamas. This action, “the kidnapping to Hebron of the three settlers,” was an “operation spoken of far and wide,” al-Arouri added.

The sheikh was speaking at a conference of Muslim scholars in Turkey.

“There are those who say that it was your brothers in the al-Qassam Brigades, who carried it out for the sake of al-Qassam members who are in jails and who sit in a hunger strike,” al-Arouri continued, according to a Hebrew translation provided by Channel 2.

Hamas has denied involvement in the plot, but has long called for the kidnapping of Israelis, in order to exchange them for members held in Israeli jails.

Israel has accused Hamas of being behind the June 12 abduction and killing of Naftali Fraenkel, 16, Gil-ad Shaar, 16, and Eyal Yifrach, 19. The three were last seen at a hitchhiking post outside the settlement of Alon Shvut in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem.

The abduction sparked a massive search operation and crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, with hundreds of members arrested. Israeli officials said earlier this month that they arrested Hussam Kawasme, suspected of being the ringleader of the cell that carried out the attack. Kawasme reportedly admitted to interrogators that the group received funding from Hamas operatives in order to carry out the operation. The other two members of the cell, Marwan Kawasme and Amer Abu Aysha, who are thought to have carried out the killing, are still at large.

The bodies of the three teens were found near Hebron on June 30, sparking anti-Arab protests.

Tensions further ratcheted up after an East Jerusalem teen was killed by a Jewish Israeli in an apparent revenge attack, sparking days of unrest throughout the country and in the West Bank and heavy rocket fire on Israel.

On July 8, Israel launched the ongoing Operation Protective Edge to stymie the rocket fire with airstrikes and carried out a limited ground incursion into Gaza to destroy a network of cross-border attack tunnels.

Read more: Israeli NGO asks US to extradite Hamas man behind 3 teens’ murder | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-asks-us-to-extradite-hamas-man-behind-3-teens-murder/#ixzz3B6zmHtC8 Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Hamas official admits kidnapping Israeli teens

A senior Hamas leader has said the group carried out the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teens in the West Bank in June - the first time anyone from the Islamic militant group has said it was behind an attack that helped spark the current war in the Gaza Strip.

Saleh Arouri told a conference in Turkey on Aug. 21 that Hamas’s military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, carried out what he described as a "heroic operation" with the broader goal of sparking a new Palestinian uprising.

"It was an operation by your brothers from the al-Qassam Brigades," he said, saying Hamas hoped to exchange the youths for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Hamas has repeatedly praised the kidnappings, but Arouri, the group’s exiled West Bank leader, is the first member to claim responsibility. Israel has accused Hamas of orchestrating the kidnappings and identified two operatives as the chief suspects. The two men remain on the loose.

Arouri’s admission shows "Hamas has no qualms whatsoever about targeting innocent civilians," said Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev.

The kidnappings of the three teens while they were hitchhiking on June 12, along with the discovery of their bodies two weeks later, sparked a broad Israeli crackdown on Hamas members throughout the West Bank. Hamas responded with heavy rocket fire out of the Gaza Strip, leading Israel to launch an aerial and ground invasion of the territory.

More than 2,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed in the fighting, according to Palestinian and U.N. officials, while 67 Israelis have also been killed, all but three of them soldiers. An Egyptian effort to mediate a cease-fire collapsed this week, leading to a resumption of heavy fighting.

Arouri told the conference that Hamas "did not have the intention at this time to ignite a large battle." He said his group did not believe Israel wanted a war either. "But Allah has chosen and willed that a large battle would be ignited," he said.

Arouri is one of Hamas’ most senior figures. He founded Hamas’ military wing in the West Bank two decades ago and now commands the group’s operations in the area from exile in Turkey. He was deported several years ago in a deal that freed him from Israeli prison.

Earlier this week, Israel identified Arouri as the mastermind of an alleged plot to launch an uprising in the West Bank aimed at toppling Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Rights group says surge in Saudi beheadings

Human Rights Watch says 19 people have been executed in the kingdom since August 4, including one for sorcery.

At least 19 people have been beheaded in Saudi Arabia this month for offences including drug smuggling and sorcery, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The dead include four Saudi men executed in Najran province on Monday for smuggling hashish, and two foreigners - a Syrian and a Pakistani, accused of the same crime.

Authorities beheaded Saudi national, Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi, on August 5 for allegedly practicing sorcery, the Saudi Gazette reported.

The family of another man, Hajras bin Saleh al-Qurey, who suffers from a mental disability, fear his execution for drug smuggling is imminent.

Doctors who examined him confirmed he had symptoms of mental illness, but concluded that he should be held criminally liable.

Qurey said investigators had pressured him in to confess by placing him in solitary confinement, according to the statement by HRW, which relied on local news reports, court documents and interviews with relatives.

'Disturbing surge'

On Wednesday, Saudi authorities executed a Pakistani national for the murder of an Afghan man, the AFP news agency reported.

At least 34 people have been put to death in the country in 2014, including the 19 people killed in August.

Amnesty International denounced what it called a "disturbing surge" and called on the Saudi government to immediately halt all executions.

"Any execution is appalling, but executions for crimes such as drug smuggling or sorcery that result in no loss of life are particularly egregious," said HRW's Sarah Leah Watson.

"The current surge in executions in Saudi Arabia is yet another dark stain on the kingdom’s human rights record."

The kingdom reserves the death penalty for crimes including murder, robbery, drug smuggling, blasphemy and drug smuggling.

Why Is Britain a Breeding Ground For ISIS Terrorists?

BY ALASTAIR JAMIESON

http://www.nbcnews.com/

The voice of an apparent British militant narrating the video showing the beheading of American journalist James Foley has triggered renewed questions about why the U.K. is a breeding ground for jihadis.

At least 400 Britons are among the estimated 2,000 Europeans who are fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), according to Prime Minister David Cameron. And the ease with which Europeans can travel into Syria through Turkey has alarmed intelligence officials in the West.

On Thursday, NBC News reported that three militants with British accents had been dubbed "The Beatles" by hostages taken in Syria. A person close to several recent hostage negotiations said "The Beatles" were harsher than other guards. "Whenever the Beatles showed up, there was some kind of physical beating or torture," the source added.

Britain has a “deeply entrenched problem,” according to the Quillam Foundation, an anti-extremist think tank. “London historically has had Islamist ideology being taught openly without being challenged and there are many people who have grown up knowing and believing that the only way to be Muslims is to create this Islamic state," said Harris Rafiq, Quilliam's head of outreach. "It's not surprising that jihadis have been able to cherry-pick these people."

The true number of British jihadis could be even higher. Khalid Mahmood, a U.K. parliament lawmaker from Birmingham, England, estimates that at least 1,500 Brits have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria over the last three years — more than double the number of Muslims currently serving in the U.K. military.

However, the numbers are inevitably higher in European nations with large Muslim populations. “When you look at the raw numbers, it’s not the best way to get a sense of how deep the problem is,” said Shiraz Maher, senior research fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization at London’s King’s College. “What we’ve done is to wade through the numbers of foreign fighters in relations to the Muslim population of those countries. When you do it like that, Belgium is actually way off the chart. But the Scandinavian countries feature very highly, and Britain as well.”

Britain’s problem with radicalized Muslims — described by Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond as “a poison, a cancer” - is made acute chiefly because of its role as the biggest global ally of the United States in the tarnished invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the same time, English is gaining traction as the language of choice for recruitment videos and other online propaganda because it has greater viral potential on social media.

“It’s no coincidence that the [Foley beheading] video was in English,” said Ghaffar Hussain, managing director of Quillam. "If the West, particularly America, is where you are trying to get your message heard, it makes sense.”

Social media is a powerful tool, especially for recruiting young male Muslims, according to Hussain. “The violent messages appeal to the macho element and the sense of going to join a fight,” he said, citing the recent case of Muhammad Hamidur Rahman, a 25-year-old killed while fighting in Syria after quitting his job at a British branch of fashion chain Primark. “One minute you’re working as a shop assistant, next minute you’re on the front line with a gun. It’s an attractive idea for many.”

YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have partly replaced Britain’s previous funnel for extremism — radical preachers invited to speak at hardline mosques and Islamic schools.

A recent ICSR report also noted that social media had become essential in spreading the extremist message from the fighting fronts of wars that are so dangerous that Western journalists struggle to cover them. “Social media is no longer virtual: it has become an essential facet of what happens on the ground,” the report said.

Since the 2005 bombings on London's transport network, tackling fanatical messages has become an obsession in Britain - a mostly secular country despite Queen Elizabeth’s formal position as “defender of the faith” and head of the Church of England. Such has been the country’s multicultural ethos that the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, once stated that, as king, he wanted to be “defender of all the faiths,” including Islam.

Wearing the Islamic veil, or burqa, is banned in public places in France, Belgium and parts of Switzerland. In contrast, England’s professional body for family attorneys recently began offering training courses in drafting wills that are compliant with Islamic Shariah law.

Some commentators argue that this tolerance has left Britain more exposed to the threat posed to its Muslim communities by radical Islam.

“In the U.K., with our proud tradition of freedom and not wanting to get involved in religious disputes, we have been bending over backwards to regard murderous ideologies as expressions of free speech,” said Anthony Glees, director of the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies. “Islamist extremist ideologies have spread with relative ease under the cover of ‘free speech’ and ‘multiculturalism’.”

Glees added that Britain’s predominantly Sunni Muslim population was also particularly vulnerable to the allure of the jihadi message from Sunni ISIS.

“Across Europe, Muslim populations come from different parts of the Islamic world. British Muslims come primarily from Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Horn of Africa — in other words, places where the political culture is virulent,” he said. “I think it is a particular problem in the U.K. in as much as most of our Muslims are from Sunni background. It is not that that you are more likely to be a violent extremist if you’re from a Sunni background but it is much easier to call yourself a preacher. There is no hierarchy in the Sunni religion. Anyone can say they’re a preacher, and this gives them an opening into mosques, the college lecture circuit and other places where young people congregate.”

The problem has continued despite a series of multi-million dollar government campaigns to prevent young British Muslims from becoming radicalized. It is easy to find Muslims in London who publicly defend the establishment of the Islamic State and who favor Shariah law over the law of the land.

Quilliam's Harris fears the problem could come home to roost, saying he would be horrified if an attack on London occurred — "but I would not be surprised."

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "wants to make a statement he is a bigger terrorist, a bigger jihadi, a bigger figure than Osama Bin Laden was, and he has got to try to undertake an attack on the West. And London is a prime target for that display," Harris added.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/james-foley/why-britain-breeding-ground-isis-terrorists-n185951

IS threat 'beyond anything we've seen': Pentagon

The sophistication, wealth and military might of Islamic State militants represent a major threat to the United States that may surpass that once posed by al Qaeda, U.S. military leaders said on Thursday.

"They are an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon.

Hagel's assessment of Islamic State, which gained strength during Syria's civil war and swept into northern Iraq earlier this summer, sounded a note of alarm several days after the group posted a video on social media showing one of its fighters beheading an American hostage kidnapped in Syria.

Asked if the hardline Sunni Muslim organization posed a threat to the United States comparable to that of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hagel said it was "as sophisticated and well-funded as any group we have seen."

"They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of ... military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we've seen."

Hagel spoke as the United States continued attacking Islamic State targets in Iraq. In the past two weeks, U.S. drones and fighter jets have conducted 89 airstrikes against militant targets in northern Iraq.

So far, President Barack Obama has sought to limit his renewed military campaign in Iraq to protecting American diplomats and civilians under direct threat. Obama ended the war in Iraq that killed thousands of American soldiers and consumed U.S. foreign policy for nearly a decade,

Even after the gruesome killing of U.S. journalist James Foley, Obama is seen as unlikely to deepen his near-term military involvement in either Iraq or Syria as he seeks to avoid becoming embroiled in another messy Middle Eastern conflict.

But U.S. officials say they have not ruled out escalating military action against Islamic State, which has increased its overt threats against the United States since the air campaign in Iraq began.

'APOCALYPTIC, END-OF-DAYS VISION'

"We haven't made a decision to take additional actions at this time, but we truly don't rule out additional action against ISIL if it becomes warranted," Ben Rhodes, a senior Obama aide, told National Public Radio earlier on Thursday, using another name for Islamic State.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said officials were worried about the possibility that European or U.S. nationals, radicalized after fighting in Iraq or Syria, would return to their home countries.

Dempsey suggested Islamic State would remain a danger until it could no longer count on safe havens in areas of Syria under militant control.

"This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of- days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated," Dempsey said.

"To your question, can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border."

Malala Promotes Universal Education at UN

Global education advocate Malala Yousafzai joined the U.N. secretary-general Monday to mark the 500 Days countdown until the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals. The teen activist has inspired other young people with her commitment to making education available to children everywhere.

Five-hundred young people gathered at the U.N. Monday to encourage political leaders to keep up the momentum as the clock counts down to the deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals of eradicating extreme poverty, hunger and other obstacles to development and healthy lives.

Their focus was the second of the eight goals - achieving universal primary education. And their motivational speaker was Malala Yousafzai, the courageous young Pakistani girl who survived a Taliban assassination attempt for wanting to go to school.

Malala said her dream is still to see every child go to school and she encouraged other young people to get involved in making it happen.

“We should believe in the power of our voice and we should believe that yes, it can really bring a change,” she said.

The young advocate has had a busy year. She has visited Syrian refugees in Jordan and met the parents of school girls abducted in Nigeria, all while promoting her Malala Fund which empowers girls through education.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed Malala on Monday, saying she is a “daughter of the U.N.’ He encouraged other young people to follow her example and raise their voices too.

“One may think, I’m just a young girl or a young boy, I don’t have any power, but each and every one of you can make a difference,” he said.

Ban said that the world is experiencing so many “fires burning” at once, and the U.N. is working to extinguish them. He said there is a “flame of hope” as well, which are the Millennium Development Goals.

While all eight will likely not reach their targets in time for the 2015 deadline, the U.N. is looking beyond that timeframe to carry on a post-2015 sustainable development agenda.

What does the escalation of the Russia- Ukraine dispute mean?

With the escalation of the conflict in eastern Ukraine and the increasing sanctions on Russia, Ukraine and Russia are facing a critical decision. Whether to keep the confrontation going or begin to compromise is a tricky decision for both.

With 280 Russian trucks heading for the border between Russia and Ukraine, the Russia- Ukraine dispute is getting worse. Ukraine doubts Russian claims that the trucks are loaded with humanitarian assistance such as food and medicine. The result is that the trucks have been intercepted on the border of Russia and Ukraine.

Reporters from The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph said they saw 23 Russia armored cars cross the border into Ukraine. The secretary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization hastened to declare that its allied forces had also seen Russian trucks enter Ukraine.

Tension between Russia and the western countries is rising. The foreign Affairs Committee of the EU delivered a declaration that any unilateral Russian military action would be a brazen breach of international law. Russia accused the West countries of thwarting its humanitarian assistance.

The White House has declared that it remains unclear whether Russian soldiers have invaded Ukraine, and has warned Russia against entering Ukraine without the permission of the latter. Concerned at the possible damage to the European economy, EU countries have urged Russia not to escalate the dispute.

The escalation of Russia-Ukraine dispute is an indicator of the level of distrust between the West and Russia. The sanctions imposed on Russia are harmful to both Russia and the EU. The US economic sanctions against Russia are a blow to the economy of Russia as well as that of Euro-zone area. If its trucks are not allowed to enter Ukraine, Russia, in an effort to save face, will continue to make further trouble in eastern Ukraine.

GoPro Moscow base jump: Int Min releases 'Stalin star-painter' escape footage

Moscow police made public Go-Pro footage shot by the possible painters of a star on the iconic Stalin skyscraper in downtown Moscow. Police detained a group of four daredevils, who parachuted off the building, and charged them with vandalism for painting the spire in the yellow-blue colors of the Ukrainian flag.

Afghanistan: Mission Impossible or Mission Accomplished?

Mohammad Shafiq Hamdam

Since August 2003, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has been engaged in Afghanistan to conduct security operations, train and develop the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Since then seven NATO summits have been held, the eighth and last NATO summit in the format of ISAF will be held at Newport, Wales on 5 September 2014.

The ISAF mission is a first of its kind; both in terms of numbers of troop contributing nations and geographical location. This decade was a historic one for NATO and the organisation has grown unprecedentedly. Since its engagement in Afghanistan the organisation has grown from 19 to 28 member countries. For the first time NATO allies had to take action under the Article Five of the treaty, which is the collective self-defence act. During this decade of war against terror more than 21,000 Afghan civilians, 13,000 ANSF, 3,500 international forces dead. There is not an exact figure of the allies’ expenditure in Afghanistan, but it runs into billions of US dollars. Over all this was the biggest ever mission of the organisation and a test for the allies.

The primary objective of the Alliance has been to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security and ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists. Today Afghanistan has 352,000 strong Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Their determination and dedication can’t be questioned. But for long-term sustainment of those forces they are in need of equipment and training.

Launched in 2011, the transition of full security responsibility is due to be completed at the end of 2014 and ISAF’s mission will end. To avoid any gap and for the sustainment of the ANSF the Afghan government and NATO allies agreed at the Chicago Summit for a follow-on mission to train, advise and assist the ANSF after 2014.

In the Chicago Summit Afghan government and the International Community agreed on an estimated annual budget of US$4.1billion for the ANSF. The model for the total ANSF size was envisaged a 228,500. The recent assessment of the Afghan government shows that the size is not enough, so they will urge for US6 billion in the upcoming summit. However it was mutually agreed in the Chicago Summit that the funding for the ANSF will be reviewed regularly against the developing security environment. But these pledges are condition based. The condition is clear and that is a legal framework for the presence of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan after 2014.

On the political side, NATO has contributed a huge amount in Afghanistan. It secured the constitutional Loya Jirga or grand council and support Afghan forces to secure all the elections since 2004. NATO has significantly contributed to the reconstruction and development efforts by the Afghan government and the international community. The large footprint of NATO across the country has enabled humanitarian and aid organisations to contribute in very remote areas of the country. And this was an opportunity for millions of Afghans in these very remote areas to raise their voice and to be heard in the country and around the world. NATO diplomats have served alongside the military and the NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan has played a significant role to connect NATO capitals with the Afghan government as well as to reach the neighbouring and regional countries.

Afghanistan is located in a region between four imbalanced nuclear powers. And it’s been in a vulnerable position throughout history because of the importance of its geopolitical and strategic location. So in order to strengthen peace, security and stability in Afghanistan, it is a wise decision to have a partnership with the world’s most powerful military and political organisation. Regional counties should also acknowledge that the presence of NATO in the region has significantly contributed to their own security and stability.

Of course there are still terrorist threats and there is violence in some of the neighbouring countries, but that could have been worst if NATO was not in the region during the last decade. So the presence of NATO in Afghanistan is not only in the interests of Afghanistan, but also in the interests of all the regional countries. In addition, it will not be a wise decision for NATO to turn its back on Afghanistan. The investments made in the last decade should not be in vain. NATO should also acknowledge and define its mutual interest in Afghanistan with its partner.

The NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership, signed in 2010 at the Lisbon Summit, has opened a wider platform. But because of the security transition process, the enduring partnership was not expanded. Meanwhile NATO has been negotiating with the Afghan government on the Status of Forces’ Agreement (SOFA) for its new mission. The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) will be a vital mission for the support of the emerging ANSF and for NATO’s goal, which is to ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists.

It’s for the current and new Afghan administration to consider the relationship and co-operation with NATO and the US a vital and urgent one. Such a partnership can be an assurance of the ANSF sustainability and security in the country and wider region. Any strong relationship with NATO is an access gate for Afghanistan to all 28-member allies as well as an assurance of a sovereign state free from any possible interferences of any country. Likewise NATO will also mutually benefit from having a relationship with a country, where billions have been invested and a country that has an important role for the security of the Alliance’s citizens.

Many legitimate concerns of the Afghan government, including the controversial issue of civilian casualties during NATO operations, independent operations and other matters has been increasingly addressed and there will be no room for such a concerns after completion of the current ISAF mission. So the Afghan government and NATO should be able to enter a new, comprehensive, closer, stronger and mutual relationship. It should be based on mutual commitment and long-term cooperation with full respect to the sovereignty of Afghanistan. The relation which can possibly make Afghanistan a NATO member country in the future.

This is a desire of Afghans to continue their relationship with the US and NATO allies. The endorsement of the Strategic Partnership and Bilateral Security Agreements with the US by more than 2,500 representatives of the Afghan people from across the country at the consultative Loya Jirgas last year and in 2011, are clear examples. There is no doubt that there is a mutual need for long-lasting and stronger relationships between Afghanistan and its partners, and these are needed sooner rather than later.

Hence it’s up to the current and new Afghan administration to immediately finalise the Bilateral Security Agreement with the US and an agreement with NATO in order to allow the continuation of this historic relationship. That needs to be done urgently, before or during the NATO Summit in Wales. Then this Summit can be another historic milestone for the Afghanistan-US and NATO relationship.

Afghanistan: We Will Protect People's Votes: Abdullah

At a meeting hosted by members of the Reform and Convergence Team on Thursday afternoon, presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah asserted that the audit process should bring justice, adding that his team will monitor every step of the process before making final decisions.

"We want the audit process to bring justice," he said. "I assure the people of Afghanistan that we are determined to protect their votes."

Moreover, Abdullah stressed on the significance of maintaining the legitimacy of the election process, stating that people's votes should not be tampered with.

"Defending votes is not about getting power; it is about defending the rights of the people of Afghanistan," he stated while claiming that his team has genuine votes from various provinces around the country.

Abdullah also emphasized that safeguarding people's trust is an important part of his leadership.

"The only thing we have is the people's trust; we will not give it up in exchange for anything," Abdullah stressed.

The statements came as recent disputes in the Independent Election Commission (IEC) have once again raised concerns and uncertainties about the future of the election process.

In addition, Abdullah urged on the political negotiations with Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai on the formation of national unity government, but maintained that the negotiations are not asking for privileges.

"The political process doesn't mean asking for privileges. Talks are underway and we will have a negotiation ready in the next few days."

But, Abdullah's second vice runner mate Mohammad Mohaqeq criticized the auditing procedures and declares the election commission as the main element behind the frauds.

"You saw the episode of the fat and skinny sheep's became the headline; Amarkhail resigned and left the sheep's for others, we have always said that Amarkhail and Saadat played a role in the electoral frauds, but no one listened to us," Mohammad Mohaqeq said.

Meanwhile, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's team has asked that audit process and invalidation of votes are transparent and valid.

Abdullah and his rival Ashraf Ghani held a meeting on Wednesday focusing on the formation of the national unity government.

Pakistan: Asif Zardari arrives in Karachi

Former President Asif Ali Zardari has arrived in Islamabad today (Thursday) and is likely to call Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP) meeting in Karachi. According to details, the former president of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari has reached Karachi from Dubai in context of the current political rift between the government and the opposition parties. Previously, National Assembly’s Opposition Leader and PPP’s senior leader Khursheed Shah and Senator Aitezaz Ahsan were called to Dubai yesterday (Wednesday). Moreover, other leaders were supposed to reach there to discuss the current socio-political crisis in the country; however, as Asif Ali Zardari has arrived Karachi, all the political leaders are expected to reach there to meet the party’s co- chairperson to discuss the current socio-political situation and announce PPP’s stance over it. Previously, Zardari conducted an Executive Committee meeting in Dubai as well. As per sources, many leaders requested former President to reach Pakistan to discuss the current political situation.

Pakistan: Violence and democracy can never co-exist

http://www.ppp.org.pk/

By: Senator Taj Haider Secretary General PPP Sindh

The present crisis of the Right wing extremist politics of Pakistan is the direct result of manipulations made for rigging the last general elections. Those shouting themselves hoarse over rigging in the last elections were themselves the biggest beneficiaries of such rigging. They choose to ignore the fact that 3 political parties that were against religious extremism were not allowed to run an election campaign. The son of Prime Minister Gillani was kidnapped on gunpoint for holding a small election corner meeting in Multan (he has not been recovered till date) while PML(N) and PTI were campaigning in the legnth and breadth of the country unhindered and unharmed.

What difference militancy made in the results of the Elections can be gauged from the results of NA-1 Peshawar where the PTI chief Mr. Imran Khan had won by a lead of 70,000 votes in the general elections and had vacated the seat later. In the bye-elections held just 2 months later when the militants allowed ANP to campaign not only the PTI lead of 70,000 votes vanished but the seat itself was lot by the PTI.

The holy agitators also choose to ignore the findings of the Election Tribunal on the rigging committed by the PTI on PS-93, Karachi West. The Tribunal in its judgment on 7th August found that the sitting MPA, who is PTIs General Secretary Sindh Province, had changed the results of 7 polling stations, increased votes in his favour by more than 5,000 and reduced the votes of the JI candidate who was declared the ultimate winner by the Tribunal. The same Secretary General PTI took hundreds of PTI workers to Islamabad Dharnas and stood next to his Chief demanding “resignations and fair elections”. Stones are being pelted all around on others by PTI without realizing that they are themselves sitting in a glass house.

These were not elections. This was an arrangement worked out by the agencies (whom the PPP President Mr. Makhdoom Amin Faheem rightly congratulated on PML(N) election victory) and supported on ground by militants. This was an artificial arrangement, whose time was long past. This arrangement had to crumble down. The time for worn out ideas and their imposition at gun point is long gone.

Pakistan People Party had opted for continuation of the spirit of the Charter of Democracy. The spirit is that of reconciliation. It excludes dictation of the establishment. We had made PML(N) a part of the Federal Government. We were ourselves part of the Punjab Government. Unfortunately Mian Nawaz Sharif Sahib thought it better to part way and started using Judiciary and State Institutions to destabilize our elected government. While we were acting boldly to oust militants from Swat and other areas, these elements were provided safe heavens in Southern Punjab. Their camps were not dismantled and these very extremists provided militant support in Southern Punjab to deliver a solid PPP area to PML (N).

In the interest of continuation of democracy PPP decided not to protest on the streets. The highly abusive language used against us and our leadership by PML(N) hurt us. But at the present crucial juncture the language being used against PML(N) leadership is hurting us more. Continuation of the democratic system remains as ever our top priority. Democracy presupposes a civilized political culture, which is being ruined by these elements who have no stakes in the democratic system.

Can the commission appointed by the Honourable Supreme Court investigate all of more than 1300 seats of the Provincial and National Assemblies? The record has been so badly messed up as a result of arrangements made before the polls that it has become impossible to correctly identify the bogus votes. The fact that 3 parties who were against the extremist militants were not allowed to campaign while PTI and PML(N) enjoyed their full support is reason enough to call the election unfair. PPP has been saying that from the first day.

The most important question is, where do we go from here? PPP, the biggest sufferer of rigging believes in “politics of reconciliation”. Major successes for Democracy, the Charter of Democracy, the NFC Award, the 18th Amendment, the completion of the term of previous assemblies and the governments were all results of “politics of reconciliation”. “Politics of Confrontation” which does make headlines in the Media has always resulted in setbacks and loosing of all the democratic gains and ultimately in dictatorship. We have seen enough of it in 1999. We do not understand why the PTI and PML(N) who were the biggest beneficiaries of poll rigging are pushing the country to the same abyss through confrontation. Everyone stands to loose. There are no winners in this confrontation or in any confrontation for that matter.

Emotionalism has to make way for Rationalism. Violence and democracy can never co-exist. We shall have to jointly find way to exclude militancy and the role of agencies from the electoral system. The time for such a system has arrived. Attempts to postpone it will always result in one crisis after the other.

Source : Office of the Senator Taj Haider Secretary General PPP Sindh.

Music: Ariana Grande - Problem

Afshan Zebi : Lokan Do Do Yaar Banaye

PAKISTAN: UNDER THE SHADOW OF THE MILITARY JACKBOOT – ANALYSIS

By Gurmeet Kanwal

Like Pakistan, the nation, its army has been passing through turbulent times. The army’s counter-insurgency operations in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa (erstwhile North West Frontier Province) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) have not been going well; its establishments have been repeatedly attacked with at least some attackers coming from within; its relations with its NATO allies had plummeted to an all-time low after the spectacular US raid to kill Osama bin Laden at Abbottabad in May 2011; the morale of the rank and file is low; and, its senior leadership is once again at loggerheads with the political leaders of Pakistan.

Despairing at the role played by the Pakistan army in meddling in the country’s politics and governance in the context of the ‘memogate’ scandal in December 2011, then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani had called the army a ‘state within a state’. Though this phrase has been in use for long, many analysts are of the view that the Prime Minister got it wrong because, in Pakistan, the army is the state. In fact, the army and the ISI (the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate) together form the ‘deep state’.

The military jackboot has ridden roughshod over Pakistan’s polity for most of the country’s history since its independence. While Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Haq and Musharraf ruled directly as Presidents or Chief Martial Law Administrators, the other army chiefs achieved perfection in the fine art of backseat driving. The army repeatedly took over the reins of administration under the guise of the ‘doctrine of necessity’ and, in complete disregard of international norms of jurisprudence, Pakistan’s Supreme Court mostly played along.

Almost since the birth of Pakistan, the army has effectively ensured that Pakistan’s fledgling democracy is not allowed to take deep root. The roots of authoritarianism in Pakistan can be traced back to General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan who promoted the idea of ‘guided’ or ‘controlled’ democracy. The concept of the ‘Troika’ emerged later as a power sharing arrangement between the President, the Prime Minister and the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). The ‘political militarism’ of the Pakistan army imposed structural constraints on the institutionalisation of democratic norms in the civil society.

Some key national policies have always been dictated by the army. The army determines Pakistan’s national security threats and challenges and decides how to deal with them. Pakistan’s policy on Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir is guided by the army and the rapprochement process with India cannot proceed without its concurrence. The army controls Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme and the related research and development. The civilian government has no role to play in deciding the doctrine for nuclear deterrence, the force structures, the targeting policies and the process of command and control. The army Chief controls the ISI and decides the annual defence expenditure and all defence procurements. He also controls all senior-level promotions and appointments; the government merely rubber stamps the decisions. Lt Gen Shuja Ahmed Pasha, DG ISI, was given two extensions at the behest of the COAS and General Kayani was himself given a three-year extension.

In keeping with its visceral hatred of India and in order to weaken India, as also to further China’s objectives of reducing India’s influence in Asia and confining it to the backwaters of the Indian Ocean as a subaltern state, the Pakistan army has adopted a carefully calculated strategy of ‘bleeding India through a thousand cuts’. This has been given effect overtly through irregular warfare – the Razakar and Mujahid invasion of Kashmir in 1947-48 and Operation Gibraltar in 1965; and, the Kargil intrusions of 1999. A proxy war has been waged through ISI-sponsored militancy and terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and state-sponsored terrorism in other parts of India, like the Mumbai terror strikes in November 2008. In the 1980s, Pakistan had encouraged and supported Sikh terrorist organisations in their misplaced venture to seek the creation of an independent state of Khalistan.

The ISI provides operational, intelligence, communication, training, financial and material support to fundamentalist terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Tayebba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) to wage war against India. Similarly, it provides substantial intelligence and material support to various Taliban factions like the North Waziristan-based Haqqani Network to operate in Afghanistan against the Karzai regime and against NATO-ISAF forces. This is done despite the fact that Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally in the so-called ‘global war against terrorism’ (GWOT). The killing of Osama bin Laden in the army cantonment of Abbottabad, where he had been housed by the ISI for almost five years, provided direct proof of the ISI’s complicity in anti-NATO activities.

This duplicitous working ethos of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds comes naturally to the Pakistan army and the ISI. In fact, during the Kargil conflict, the Pakistan army had earned the infamous sobriquet of ‘rogue army’ for asking its soldiers to fight in civilian clothes, returning badly mutilated bodies of captured Indian soldiers and refusing to take back the bodies of soldiers of the Northern Light Infantry killed in action on the specious grounds that they were Mujahideen.

Some of the powers usurped by the army over the years can be attributed to the political parties’ self-inflicted injuries. The shenanigans of the two main political parties – the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League – and widespread corruption led several times to the people’s complete disenchantment with the rule of PPP’s Benazir Bhutto and her father before her and PML’s Nawaz Sharif. In addition to poor political leadership, the failure of democratic institutions can also be ascribed to constitutional and judicial weaknesses and the unsatisfactory levels of socio-economic development. The people were disenchanted with the poor quality of governance provided by the Yousaf Raza Gilani/ Raja P Ashraf-led PPP government; it is to General Kayani’s credit that he did not stage a coup.

External factors have also led to the army playing a larger role than is warranted in a democracy. By arming the military to the teeth, the US has caused Pakistan to become a praetorian state in which the army plays a dominant role. It is only recently, in the face of the Pakistan army’s perfidious role in Afghanistan that the US government has begun to come to terms with its ill-considered policy. After the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers by NATO-ISAF forces in a border outpost in November 2011, US-Pakistan relations had hit a new low. The incident led to the Pakistan government’s decision to stop the flow of logistics convoys through Quetta and Peshawar, deny base facilities at Shamsi airbase and demand re-negotiation of the rules of engagement. In turn, the US government announced that it would withhold military aid to Pakistan.

The army and the Nawaz Sharif government were till recently at loggerheads over the government’s counter-insurgency policy, which had lacked cohesion. The army had been recommending to the government for quite some time that firm military action was necessary to deal with the menace of home grown terrorism, but the political leadership had disagreed. The commencement of a peace dialogue with the TTP by the government, allowed the terrorist organisation to re-arm, recruit and train fresh fighters. It also gave the TTP leadership the opportunity to cross the border into Afghanistan. In March 2014, the TTP offered a month-long cease-fire. The army honoured the cease-fire and refrained from active operations, but TTP factions fought on. On April 16th, the TTP withdrew its pledge and blamed the government for failing to make any new offers.

In the face of mounting public and army pressure, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reluctantly agreed to approve military strikes. He was apprehensive that General Raheel Sharif, the COAS, may unilaterally decide to launch an all-out offensive. The PM is now backing the army fully and has said that he will not allow Pakistan to become a “sanctuary of terrorists” and that the military operation will continue till all the militants are eliminated. On June 15, 2014, the Pakistan army finally launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb (sharp and cutting), its much delayed offensive against the TTP in North Waziristan. Two months after it was launched, the operation is yet to achieve its goals.

The precarious situation in Pakistan is headed towards a dangerous denouement. Imran Khan, Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party and Tahir-ul-Qadri, a rabble-rousing cleric, are leading a march to Islamabad. The likelihood of a military coup is being openly discussed again. The economy is in a serious mess. The funds are low, the debts are high, exports have dwindled to a trickle and the rupee has fallen to all time low of about 100 rupees to a dollar. Pakistan dependent on US largesse to meet its obligations for the repayment of its burgeoning debt. The beleaguered Prime Minister appears to be at his wit’s end.

The army remains central to the survival of Pakistan. Pakistan cannot survive as a coherent nation state unless the army gives up its agenda of seeking strategic depth in Afghanistan, its attempts to destabilise India through its proxy war and stops meddling in politics. The army must pull itself up by the bootstraps and substantively enhance its capacity to conduct effective counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. The army has to realise that it has let down Pakistan and must make amends. In the national interest, the army must give up being a state within a state and accept civilian control, even if it does so with bad grace.

Pakistan: IG Islamabad replaced for avoiding torture on marchers: sources

Inspector General of Police (Islamabad) Aftab Ahmad Cheema has been removed from post for not accepting government’s order to crackdown on protestors in the federal capital, sources told Dunya News.

According to the Ministry of Interior, acting charge of IG has been given to DIG Headquarters Khalid Khattak. According to sources, the government had ordered police to arrest Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri. Afterwards, IG Islamabad Aftab Cheema had directed police to avoid torture on the long march participants.

Police officials are confused over government’s contradictory orders against the protestors, sources told. As the news regarding IG Islamabad’s replacement surfaced, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Vice Chairman Shah Mehmood Qureshi claimed police have launched crackdown on PTI workers.

Pakistan: Azadi march: PTI suspends talks with govt

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) has suspended the dialogue process with the government.

PTI leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi said the Punjab Governor was informed about the suspension of talks with the government negotiating team. Qureshi held a telephonic conversation with Chaudhry Sarwar and told him that the PTI team will not come to the hotel for the negotiation.

The official page of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf also tweeted about the decision.

Explaining the reason, the PTI said the statements of federal ministers were deteriorating the environment for talks.

The PTI committee is currently present at the residence of Jahangir Tareen.

The second round of talks between Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the government were scheduled for 2pm today.

Earlier, member of the negotiation committee, Ahsan Iqbal said that both the parties have a consensus over not being a laughing stock. PTI has presented 6 demands before the government which shall be reviewed within the party and we’re hopeful for the dialogues to bear positive outcome, he added.

Vice Chairman PTI Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that PTI is a democratic party and they are not negotiating upon anybody else’s indication. The PTI and the government have both formulated their respective teams for negotiations. The team representing the government constituted governor Punjab Chaudhry Sarwar and federal ministers viz Pervez Rashid, Zahid Hamid, Ahsan Iqbal and Abdul Qadir Baloch whereas the negotiating team representing PTI constituted Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Javed Hashmi, Asad Umer, Jahangir Tareen and Arif Alvi.

The negotiations took place in a hotel in Islamabad after which Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that they had presented their demands before the government and would be awaiting for their response after consultation.

US offers $30mn in search for Haqqani leaders

The United States offered a total $30 million Wednesday in return for information on key leaders of the feared Haqqani militant network, blamed for numerous bloody attacks in Afghanistan.

“The Department has authorized rewards of up to $5 million each for information leading to the location of Aziz Haqqani, Khalil al-Rahman Haqqani, Yahya Haqqani, and Abdul Rauf Zakir,” the State Department said in a statement.

It also increased its previous reward offer of up to $5 million for information on the group’s leader, Sirajuddin Haqqani, to up to $10 million.

The State Department added: “The group is allied with Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban and cooperates with other terrorist organizations in the region.”

It said that the network was “the most lethal insurgent group” targeting the US-led NATO coalition and Afghan personnel in neighboring Afghanistan.

Pakistan: Déjà vu

By now, it is a well-known script. In the evolution of virtually every political crisis, there comes a point where the military leadership issues a carefully worded statement that is designed to come across as well-meaning and generous, but is in fact ill-advised and unnecessary.

On Tuesday, after watching silently from the sidelines as the latest political crisis to hit the country ebbed and flowed over several days, the army leadership decided to wade deep into the crisis and offer some political advice to the political leadership.

To some, the ISPR statement will simply reflect an obvious reality: there is a political impasse in the country and the political leadership needs to demonstrate “patience, wisdom and sagacity”. Note though that the ISPR had nary a word to say on constitutionalism, democracy and the rule of law. Instead, there was the usual martial language about sacred symbols of the state and the need to protect the national interest.

Place Tuesday’s ISPR statement in the proper historical context and it amounts to little more than big brother chiding the children of democracy to behave — or else. The ‘or else’ is always left unsaid, but the country hardly needs reminding about what it could be.

Without a doubt, the army leadership has grabbed with both hands the opportunity that the political leadership has created for it — perhaps even steered events from behind the scenes to the present impasse.

Conspiracy theories are manifold in Pakistan, but consider how quickly three forces converged on Tuesday to put democracy under pressure. Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri had, until the decision to move their separate sit-ins to a joint venue directly in front of parliament, kept each other at arm’s length since setting out from Lahore on Aug 14.

Yet, on Tuesday, the two leaders coordinated their entry into Islamabad’s so-called red zone to perfection — Mr Khan and Mr Qadri taking turns to whip up the crowds they had assembled and alternating playing to the TV cameras. Amidst the sudden bonhomie between the PTI leader and Mr Qadri came the ISPR statement that piled on the pressure on the PML-N government.

If such a chain of events in the realm of civil-military relations is still possible in this day and age, some of the responsibility must surely rest on the shoulders of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for time and again mishandling the situation and underestimating his political foes.

The latest mistake appears to have come after Imran Khan’s rally to Islamabad failed to gather the kind of support that the government was initially apprehensive about. As scorn and ridicule were heaped on the PTI and Imran Khan found himself isolated, the government again failed to seize the initiative.

Rather than urgently and decisively switch the focus to electoral reforms and strengthening of the democratic system, the government seemed more preoccupied with ensuring that Mr Khan’s so-called independence rally ended with minimal damage caused to the government.

The government’s mantra of being open to talks within the Constitution with any of its political opponents is almost meaningless at this late stage because the stakes have been raised so high. What was needed was some purposefulness and clarity by the government — instead, it meekly allowed protesters to camp outside parliament.

Yet, whatever the flaws in the government’s political strategy, it must not be forgotten — and cannot be stressed enough — that the origins of the latest crisis lie in an unwillingness of certain anti-democratic and also political forces to play by democratic rules.

As ever, in seeking to bring down an elected government, the short-term goals have completely overshadowed any consideration of the longer-term impact. It may be Mr Sharif who is in the cross hairs today, but if the PML-N government is brought down in this most perplexing, even obscene, of ways, the floodgates will surely open.

On the religious and political right alone are several forces who want nothing less than to reorientate the Pakistani state and society and to have a veto over any system of governance and policy choices that do not fit with their myopic, regressive worldview.

Is Pakistan really prepared to hand over state and society to such forces? Surely, the ouster of an elected government now will only embolden the dark forces that stalk this country.

From here on, the options are limited, but clear. There may be a push for a national government with a mandate to implement electoral reforms before holding fresh polls. The exact mechanism by which such a national government can come into being is uncertain, but it may be an option the PTI is still eyeing given that it has not formally triggered the resignation process of its MNAs.

The more desirable option is even clearer: all democratic forces, inside and outside parliament, must rally to the defence of a system under attack. Democracy is truly a system worth fighting for, till the very end if necessary.

Former President Asif Ali Zardari and Chariman PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari met senior party colleagues

http://www.ppp.org.pk/

Former President Asif Ali Zardari and Chariman PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari met senior party colleagues to discuss current political situation.

Current political crisis be addressed through dialogue and within the framework of the Constitution: Former President Zardari

PPP leaders expressed concern at the short-sighted and high-handed tactics of the government and urged all parties in this conflict to resolve the issues at hand without recourse to further violence and the disruption of public life in the capital and country.

PPP leaders condemned the brutal murders in Model Town, Lahore, on June 17th 2014. The leaders demanded that an FIR be expeditiously registered in accordance with the law.

PPP observed that any unconstitutional path taken to resolve current stalemate will be detrimental to the future of democracy.

Former President Zardari lauded the services and sacrifices of the brave soldiers who were fighting on the front lines of terrorism.

Former President Zardari hoped that the country would soon be rid of menace of terrorism.

Zardari : PPP supports State, Constitution and Democracy

http://abbtakk.tv/

Former President Asif Ali Zardari has said that PPP is not with the Government, it is with the democracy and state. He said that PPP workers will come forward, if someone tries to capture parliament.

According to the details, CEC meeting of PPP was held in Dubai today. Co Chairman Asif Ali Zardari chaired the meeting. Khursheed Shah and Raza Rabbani couldn’t join the meeting due to unavailability of visa.

Meeting discusses the current political situation in detail. Talking to meeting, Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari said that PPP will defend democracy and state at all costs. He said that PPP has always been in the front row, when it comes sacrifice.

PPP has always been giving blood to democracy and state of Pakistan, whenever it required, he added.

He said that it was PPP, which gave 1973 constitution to the Nation.

He said that PPP knows how to defend constitution and Democracy.

Pakistan: Zardari, Bilawal reiterate their support for democracy

abbtakk.tv

A very important Pakistan Peoples Party meeting ended in Dubai, which showed concern over the current political situation of the country.

According the details, A very important meeting of PPP leadership has concluded in Dubai. The meeting was presided by both Asif Ali Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Meeting decided that PPP would continue its support to parliament and democracy and defend them from any danger.

Talking to meeting, Asif Ali Zardari said that PPP will not allow to ambush on democracy.

Chairman PPP, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said that democracy is the future of Pakistan.

Meeting was also attended by Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Yousif Reza Gilani, CM Sindh Syed Qaim Ali Shah,Rehman Malik, Mian Manzoor Watoo and Imtiaz Safdar Warriach.

Asif Ali Zardari will also meet the party leadership on Friday to discuss the situation in detail.

The Fate of Feminism in Pakistan

Bina Shah

On Feb. 12, 1983, 200 women — activists and lawyers — marched to the Lahore High Court to petition against a law that would have made a man’s testimony in court worth that of two women. The Pakistani dictator Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq had already promulgated the infamous Hudood Ordinance, which reflected his extremist vision of Islam and Islamic law. Now, it was clear to many Pakistani women that the military regime was manipulating Islam to rob them of their rights.

General Zia’s days are over, and parts of the Hudood laws pertaining to rape and adultery have been superseded by less objectionable clauses in Pakistan’s Protection of Women Act of 2006. But Pakistani women have yet to achieve what Madihah Akhter, writing in The Feminist Wire, an online magazine, identifies as “political, cultural and economic equality for women and a place in the constant struggle to define their nation.”

The reality of Pakistan’s women continues to confound easy categorization. They have been going to school and university, holding down jobs and earning money for several generations now. Yet they still live with widespread gender-based violence, society’s acceptance of women as property, and a widespread belief that they don’t deserve education, jobs or an existence outside the domestic sphere.

Neither Pakistan’s laws nor its social codes nor its religious mores truly guarantee women a secure place as citizens equal to men; such attitudes are preserved by patriarchal tribal and cultural traditions, as well as the continued twisting of Islamic injunctions to suit the needs of misogynists. Could feminism be the best antidote to this male chauvinism ingrained in modern Pakistani society?

Feminism has been alive in Pakistan since the country was born. During partition of the British Indian Empire in 1947, a Women’s Relief Committee, which oversaw refugee transfers between India and Pakistan, was founded by Fatima Jinnah, the sister of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father. Then Begum Ra’ana Liaqat Ali, the wife of Pakistan’s first prime minister, founded the All-Pakistan Women’s Association in 1949; that organization worked for the moral, social and economic welfare of Pakistani women. Ms. Jinnah ran in the presidential elections in 1965 and was even supported by orthodox religious parties, but lost to the dictator then holding the office, Gen. Ayub Khan.

In the 1980s, the Women’s Action Forum used activism to oppose General Zia’s myopic vision of Islam; today, Pakistani feminist collectives continue to protest violence against women, raise awareness about women’s education and political and legal rights, and lobby policy makers to enact women-friendly laws. The groundbreaking Repeal of Hudood Ordinance, the women’s empowerment bill and anti-honor-killings bill were all moved in Parliament when Sherry Rehman, a former ambassador to the United States and a renowned feminist, held the portfolio of minister for women’s development in the last decade. These and the anti-sexual-harassment bill were all eventually codified in Pakistani law over the next several years.

But many Pakistanis cling to the idea that feminism is not relevant to Pakistan — that it’s the preserve of the rich and idle or, worse, that it’s a Western imposition meant to wreak havoc on Pakistani society. Many Pakistani men and women believe that women’s rights need go no further than improvements Islam brought to the status of women in tribal Arabia in the seventh century. Men in Pakistan are not yet ready to give up their male privilege, and many Pakistani women, not wanting to rock the boat, agree with them. The Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal calls it the “convenience of subservience” when elite and upper-class women marginalize women’s movements in order to maintain their own privilege.

The scholar Margot Badran has identified two threads of feminism in the Muslim world: 19th-century “secular feminism” and 20th-century “Islamic feminism.” Islamic feminism, pioneered by scholars like Riffat Hassan, Amina Wadud, Asma Barlas and Fatema Mernissi, seeks to reclaim Islam from male interpretations by using passages in the Quran to combat institutional misogyny. Islamic feminism as practiced in Pakistan is accessible to the middle and upper middle classes, who enthusiastically attend Quran classes held in Urdu, where they analyze verses and learn about the rights that the religion affords them. It also inculcates solidarity with Muslim women around the world. But with its emphasis on academic learning, it can limit empowerment to educated women, marginalizing the unschooled and the poor.

Pakistani feminists like Shahnaz Rouse, a Sarah Lawrence College professor, and Farida Shaheed, a sociologist who heads the Shirkat Gah women’s resource center in Pakistan, have done vital work in the field of Pakistani gender identity and class analysis, while Fouzia Saeed has been instrumental in raising the issue of sexual harassment. But their work, and that of other theorists and activists whose primary basis for feminism is not Islam, is often dismissed as favored only by an English-speaking elite with little relevance to greater Pakistani society.

Yet secular feminism has a more democratic scope; its proponents agitate for the rights of all women in Pakistan, non-Muslim as well as Muslim. It links to other feminist movements worldwide, not just Islamic ones, and is more pluralistic. By appealing to secular nationalism as well as Islamic modernism, it is not restrained by the need to base all thought in Islamic scripture, although secular feminists also use this powerful tool when necessary.

A feminist movement can succeed only when it mirrors the makeup of the women and the society for whom it operates. Pakistan needs a feminism that elegantly marries both strands of feminism — secular and Islamic — because that’s how Pakistan was formed: on both Islamic and secular principles.

The clinical psychologist Rubeena Kidwai said this about the status of women in Pakistan today: “Pakistani women are like bonsai trees, clipped and pruned and weighed down by the expectations of Pakistani society.” And Pakistan’s feminists are the only ones who can undo that destructive process, so that Pakistani women can flourish and grow to the heights of their human potential.