Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Is West's Anti-ISIL Campaign Still Really Aimed Against Bashar Assad?

The infamous Islamic State has sealed its fate by attacking Paris last week, US political analyst Phil Butler told Sputnik; however, given that the West has its own geopolitical plans in the Middle East, the destruction of ISIL still may not be the primary goal, he added.

The notorious Paris attack, carried out on the eve of the Vienna negotiations over Syria, has indirectly played into the hands of the Western anti-ISIL alliance, allowing Western leaders to re-assert their stance.
And still the question remains open whether the US and France will join Russia's efforts aimed at eradicating terrorism in the region or pursue their own geopolitical goals including the "Assad must go" idea.
"This is a very good question, one I have been deep in conversation over all day. Without the past illogical strategies of the West, I'd say France, the US and Russia could eradicate ISIL in a few weeks time. Given there is another "stronger" agenda going on, it may be that the destruction of ISIL will still not be the goal. If another player, Israel for instance, is playing some fundamentally crucial role in all this, albeit a quiet one, we may see France and the US sidestep Mr. Putin yet again. The smart move is to get rid of the threat, then go back to playing hegemony chess. One slip in a France gambit on Putin, and Obama and the Neocons will have an angry mob," American journalist and political analyst Phil Butler told Sputnik.
According to the US journalist, ISIL has sealed its fate by attacking Paris.

"Now, with innocent Russia, French, and other people's blood spilt, they are over," Butler pointed out.
Undoubtedly, the Paris attack will have resonance for different European political forces. And it seems that right-wing groups as well as Euroskeptics will jump at the opportunity to gain new political points. 

"Given the socio-economic pressures and tensions within most European nations now, I do not see how we will avoid some friction and ensuing conflicts. Even before these horrid attacks, the right has seen a real resurgence with regard to outsiders. Then too, moderates worldwide have shown uncommon apathy and even callousness in grasping even neo-Nazism in Ukraine and in other states. I guess it's fair to say we are sitting on a real powder keg right now," Butler told Sputnik.

While European leaders are weighing the pros and cons of potentially shutting European borders, Paris and Washington are beating the war drums in the wake of the hideous Paris massacre.


Joining the chorus of US hawks, Republican hopeful Jeb Bush has called for invoking NATO's Article 5 in order to deal a fatal blow to the Islamic State.

According to another political analyst, Bangkok-based expert Tony Cartalucci, it would be naïve to believe that the US or its NATO allies will change their stance over Syria.

First and foremost, Washington is going to get rid of Bashar al-Assad, by hook or by crook, the analyst stresses.

"It should seem extraordinary to the global public that even after the attacks in Paris, the West still insists on undermining the Syrian government toward its goal of 'regime change,' which includes continued material support to armed militants — all of which are extremists, and many of which have either coordinated with, or fought under the banner of al-Qaeda and even the self-proclaimed 'Islamic State'," Cartalucci wrote in his recent piece for New Eastern Outlook.

Although Western leaders are pledging to eliminate the terrorists and establish peace in Syria, in reality they have no intention of bringing stability to the country, according to the analyst. Furthermore, the Western political establishment's goal is to leave Syria Balkanized and destroyed like Libya.

"The West promises that it will end the chaos in Syria, just like they promised it would end in Libya. It will not end in either," Cartalucci warned.


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151118/1030352321/france-us-russia-anti-isil-coalition.html#ixzz3rtk81iiu

US, France Must Stop Turning Blind Eye to Saudi Radicalizing Programs

Experts claim that Saudi Arabia played a key role in preparing the ground for the terror attacks in Paris by financing enormous radicalization programs targeting Muslims in France and other European countries.

Saudi Arabia played a key role in preparing the ground for the terror attacks in Paris by financing enormous radicalization programs targeting Muslims in France and other European countries, experts told Sputnik.

However, the French government has not dared to confront Saudi Arabia because it needs Saudi oil and the revenue from huge weapons sales to Riyadh, the analysts explained in interviews on Wednesday.

"Much of the extremism in France is funded by French allies in the Gulf," Institute for Gulf Affairs Director Ali al-Ahmed told Sputnik. "Saudi-French trade and arms contracts have led successive governments in Paris to overlook this Saudi role."

Other Gulf monarchies also purchase French weapons in lucrative deals for Paris, giving French authorities the incentive to tacitly tolerate continued funding for outlets that encourage Islamists, he added.

Al-Ahmed also pointed out that at the G-20 summit in Turkey following the Paris attacks, the Saudi king skipped the moment of tribute to the Paris attack victims.

"He intentionally skipped it," al-Ahmed asserted.

The United States, he added, suffers from the same reluctance to expose the Saudi role in fanning the flames of Islamic extremism.

"Almost no major political figure in the United States has spoken out about this," Ahmed pointed out.
During the Democratic presidential debate on Saturday, al-Ahmed continued, frontrunner Hillary Clinton called on Turkey and the Gulf nations to take a stand against jihadi radicalism, but did not mention her own involvement.

"[Clinton] is compromised by money she has accepted from despotic Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council monarchies," Ahmed stated.

France and the United States needed to reassess their long-running lucrative relationships with Saudi Arabia following the Paris attacks, US author and terrorism financing expert Dan Lazare told Sputnik.

"The most important thing is to re-evaluate… relations with Saudi Arabia, the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to no less an authority than Hillary Clinton, as well as with the Arab Gulf states," he advised.

Lazare recalled that in December 2009, Clinton, then serving as US secretary of state, noted in a confidential diplomatic memo that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

In October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden told Harvard University students that "'the Saudis [and] the Emirates… poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against [Syrian

President Bashar] Assad," Lazare remarked.
The funding led to massive direct US aid flowing to the Islamist groups such as the Nusra Front and al-Qaeda, Lazare pointed out.

"Unless France confronts Saudi Arabia, the problem will continue," he warned.

Lazare predicted France would continue to refuse to confront Saudi leaders because Riyadh remained too important as an oil source and as a market for military goods.


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20151119/1030363446/saudi-programs-radicalizing-muslims.html#ixzz3rtglO5O9

Video - Remarks by President Obama and President Aquino in Manila

Video - President Obama Delivers Remarks on Climate Change

Video - President Obama Delivers Remarks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Afghans losing confidence in new government, survey says

More Afghans than at any time since 2004 feel their country is moving in the wrong direction, a new survey found. Insecurity, graft, a struggling economy and Kabul's ability to tackle key issues top the list of concerns.
The nationwide survey, published by The Asia Foundation on Tuesday, November 17, shows that Afghan optimism about the overall direction of the country declined to the lowest point in a decade - after steadily rising through 2014 - with more than half of all interviewed Afghans (57.5 percent) saying the country is moving in the wrong direction - up from 40.4 percent last year.
Conducted between June 11-28, and titled Afghanistan in 2015: A Survey of the Afghan People, the public opinion poll cites deteriorating security, unemployment, and corruption as the main reasons for the increase in pessimism. For instance, the number of Afghans who say they are afraid for their personal safety is at its highest recorded level (67.4 percent) since the survey began eleven years ago.
Foreign support 'needed'
The poll also reveals the growing perception among Afghans that the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) need foreign support to operate. Almost 83 percent of Afghans say the Afghan National Army needs international assistance, while 80 percent say they feel the same way about Afghan National Police and 70.4 percent say this about the Afghan Local Police - all up from 2014.
There are indications that Afghan troops weren't alone in their efforts to recapture the strategically northern city of Kunduz from the Taliban less than two months ago, raising questions as to the degree of foreign support required to make the counter-offensive a success.
The brief fall of Afghanistan's fifth-largest city - which took place a few months after the survey was conducted - was a major setback for the ANSF and the administration of President Ashraf Ghani, as it demonstrated the Taliban's capability to expand their area of operation beyond the east and south of the country. The move also raised questions as to whether government troops can prevent another provincial capital from falling into the hands of the increasingly bold and resilient Islamist movement without foreign military support.
The Asia Foundation found that "Islamic State" (IS), which has claimed a series of deadly attacks in the country, has also had an impact on Afghans' perceptions of their safety, with nearly three out of four respondents saying they have heard of IS and 40.3 percent of all Afghans say the group poses a threat.

Loss in confidence
Optimism seems to have declined immediately following Afghanistan's contentious presidential runoff election. The political crisis over fraud claims dashed the hopes of many for a smooth democratic transition in the conflict-ridden country.
Since September of last year, the country has been ruled by a Ghani-led National Unity Government (NUG), which has faced a myriad of challenges from the outset, including a deteriorating economy in the face of declining international aid and foreign military spending, as well as the full assumption of security responsibilities by Afghan forces amid a resurgent Taliban insurgency.
"Afghanistan experienced the impact of the three simultaneous security, political, and economic transitions in 2015," said Abdullah Ahmadzai, The Asia Foundation's Country Representative in Afghanistan. "Against this intensely challenging backdrop, the 2015 survey reflects Afghans' understandable concerns, and a frustration that more progress isn't being made. The results show increased skepticism in the government's ability to effectively address these challenges."
As a result, the poll found that Afghans are less confident in their public institutions. For instance, the proportion of those who say the government is doing a good job has fallen to 58 percent, down from 75.3 percent in 2014 when election campaign promises of improvements in governance and services contributed to a sense of hope.
And the proportion of Afghans who say they are satisfied with the democratic process in the country has hit an all-time low, dropping from 73 percent last year to 57 percent.
These numbers are similar to those found in a survey conducted by DW's Dari and Pashto services. According to the poll, 80 percent of participants said they were not satisfied with Kabul's performance, while only a mere 7.5 percent said the opposite. The DW poll also reflected the current mood among the nation's populace, with most people remaining pessimistic about their prospects in the impoverished nation.
Corruption and local services

The Asia Foundation also found that the number of Afghans who say they can impact local government decisions has decreased, from 56 percent in 2014 to 44.5 percent. And despite government efforts to curb corruption, 90 percent of Afghans say corruption is a major problem in their daily lives, the highest percentage reported since 2004.
Although the country has seen progress in the delivery of basic government services, satisfaction with most services has recently dipped, as more than half Afghans cite electricity, roads, drinking water, education, healthcare, and water for irrigation as the most common problems they face not only on a local, but also on a national level.
Women's rights
In terms of the women's role in the country, 2015 saw some wins for women in Afghan politics: the cabinet now includes four female ministers and the government appointed two new female provincial governors. "Afghan women are also increasingly aware of their rights and know which institutions to contact in a domestic conflict," said The Asia Foundation.
Infografik Equal Education Afghanistan ENG
In addition, the survey found that nearly all Afghans (93.6 percent) support women's equal access to education in Islamic madrasas, and a high proportion support equal opportunities at the primary school, high school, and the university levels.
However, the case of Farkhunda, a 27-year-old woman lynched by a mob for allegedly setting a copy of the Koran on fire, and the recent insurgent attacks against educated and politically active women in Kunduz illustrate the serious challenges Afghan women face. As in previous years, Afghans list education and illiteracy (20.4 percent) and unemployment/lack of job opportunities (11.3 percent) as the two largest problems facing women.
Youth unemployment
Given that nearly half of Afghans are under the age of 18 - one of the largest youth populations in the world - The Asia Foundation also asked them about their views on the country. Afghans say unemployment (71.4 percent) and illiteracy (26.5 percent) are the two biggest problems facing their youth.
Afghanistan's economy has floundered in the past two years as international investors and aid organizations have drastically scaled back operations following the withdrawal of most international troops.
In fact, in a recently released report, researchers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the International Council of Swedish Industry (NIR), expressed concerns that the country's private sector will not be able to make up for the loss of international assistance anytime soon - a development that could bolster the insurgency and further dampen democratic prospects.
The lack of employment and prospects is also believed to be driving millions of young Afghans to embark on perilous journeys in search of a better life in places like Europe.
Media as a bright spot
A source of optimism, however, is the country's expanding media sector and increasing availability of sources of information from around the world, which continues to shape public opinion.
Two-thirds of Afghans say media institutions remain the most trusted ones alongside religious leaders (64.3 percent), and ahead of government institutions and NGOs. In 2015, 62.1 percent of Afghan households own a television, a number that has almost doubled in the last eight years.
A majority (82.3 percent) report owning at least one mobile phone in their household, compared to 41.5 percent in 2007; and 21 percent report having someone in their household who has access to the internet, according to the poll.

“داعش تر افغانستان زیات د پاکستان او ایران لپاره لوی خطر دی”

 د اسلامي دولت وسله والې ډلې داعش د تېرې جمعې په شپه په پېرس کې لږ تر لږه ۱۲۹ کسان ووژل او تر دوه سوه یې زیات ټپیان کړل.

فرانس ، روس او امریکا د داعش له دې بریدونو وروسته په شام او عراق کې د دې ډلې پر ضد په خپلو عملیاتو کې توندي راوستې ده.

دا په داسې حال کې ده چې داعش په سیمه او په ځانګړې توګه د افغانستان په ختیځ کې له شاوخوا یونیم کاله راهسې نه یوازې فعاله ده بلکې یو شمېر کسان یې هم وژلي دي.

په افغانستان کې د دې ډلې په اړه بېل بېل نظرونه دي. په دې نظرلرونکو کې داسې خلک هم شته چې بهرني هېوادونه او په ځانګړې توګه لویدیځ د دې ډلې تر شا ولاړ بولي.

د امنیتي چارو کارپوه واحد طاقت وايي ، نړیوال په افغانستان کې د داعش خپرېدو د مخنیوي لپاره ګامونه نه اخلي.

ده وویل، “افغانستان هوايي ځواک او اړین هوايي پوځي وسایل نه لري چې له کبله یې افغان ځواکونه د ترهګرو ډلو پر وړاندې کمزوري دي هغه ځکه چې ترهګر قوي ملاتړي لري “.

واحد طاقت وویل ، لکه څنګه چې نړۍ د افغانستان له ګاونډي هیوادونو پاکستان او ایران سره څنګه پوځي مرستې کوي هغسې یې له افغانستانه سره نه دې کړي.



په کابل کې د سیاسي او څېړنیزو چارو شنونکی حکمت اعظمي وايي ، داعش یوازې د افغانستان لپاره نه بلکې د ټولې سیمې او په ځانګړې توګه د پاکستان او ایران لپاره ډېر خطر دی.

نوموړی وايي ، په کار ده چې د دې ډلې په وړاندې د سیمې هیوادونه له یو بل سره د روښتونې همکارۍ پر اساس یو ګډه تګلاره جوړه کړي.

حکمت اعظمي زیاته کړه ، “داعش د خپلو هدفونو او فعالتونو لپاره دلته سرحد نه دی ټاکلی ، نو دا یوازې د افغانستان د حکومت کار نه دی بلکې د سیمې ټول هیوادونه چې له دې خطر سره مخامخ دي ، باید لاس سره یو کړي”.

که څه هم داعش ډله له پاکستان سره د افغانستان په ځینو ختیځو ولایتونو کې فعاله ده خو پاکستاني چارواکي په خپله خاوره کې د دې ډلې له شتونه انکار کوي.

په اسلام اباد کې د امنیتي چارو کارپوه او د پاکستاني پوځ پخواني برېګېډییېر سعاد محمد خان وايي ، د پاکستان دا خبره سمه نه ده چې داعش په پاکستان کې شتون نه لري.

ده وویل ، که څه هم داعش په منظمه توګه دلته نه دی رامنځ ته شوی خو په دې کې شک نشته چې د سیمې لپاره د داعش دوه ټاکل شوي لوړپوړي کسان لکه سعید خان اورکزی او شاهدالله شاهد خو د پاکستان وو.

برېګېډیر سعاد محمد خان وویل ، “د دې ډلې پر ضد داسې ګډه تګلاره او عملیات په کار دي چې د ملکونو یا ډلو تر ګټو بالاتر وي”.

الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (داعش) هغه سني وسله واله ډله ده چې په عراق او شام کې یې یو شمېر سیمې نیولې دي او هلته یې د دوی په وینا ، ًاسلامي خلافت ً جوړ کړی دی. یادې ډلې د ځینو مهمو لویدیځوالو او عراقي قبایلو په ګډون په زرګونه کسان وژلي دي.

داعش د روانې میاشتې پر ۱۳مه نېټه په لومړي ځل په اروپا کې د فرانس په پلازمېنه پېرس کې یو شمېر بریدونه وکړل چې لږ تر لږه ۱۲۹ کسان پکې ووژل شو او شاوخوا دوه سوه نور ټپيان شو.

http://www.mashaalradio.com/content/article/27373418.html

Why Christians are fleeing Pakistan?






By Nasir Saeed


Though Christians in Pakistan have never been safe or given the equal citizenship status promised to their forefathers by the Quaid e Azam, and despite of all the disparity, suffering and deprivation, they hoped that one day they would be considered an equal and that their situation would improve. 

But now they seem completely despondent and see no end to their miseries. They have lost all hope and have started fleeing to different countries in search of peace and security. They are going somewhere where they will be treated with dignity and respect and can practice their religion with freedom. Somewhere where they can lead their lives without fear of persecution because of their Christian faith. 


In fact Christians realised years ago that Pakistan holds no future for them, as soon after the death of the Quaid e Azam the social and political situation started turning against them, the Objective Resolution was adopted in 1949, and subsequently the constitution in which they were permanently barred from becoming president and prime minister of the country was passed. 

Christians took part in the movement of Pakistan and supported Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his struggle. He promised equal status in the new country and he made it clear in his first presidential speech that: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. 

"You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State”. 

He set an example by appointing several people from minorities on very high posts like Joginder Nath Mandel (Hindu) as law minister and Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan (Ahmadiyya Muslim) as foreign minister, while Mr S P Singha was already a speaker who had played a main role in making present Punjab part of Pakistan. 

Without Christian parliamentarians’ support, Pakistan's geography would have been different, but the irony is that Christians are suffering most in this province. Although hatred against them continues to grow throughout the country, statistically they are suffering most in this province. 

A large number of false blasphemy cases are being registered against them in Pakistan, kidnapping and forced conversion of Christian girls is common, the majority of their churches have been ransacked, desecrated and burnt in Punjab, most of their settlements have been set on fire in this province and more Christians than anywhere else have been killed extra judicially and even burnt alive in this province. 

Youhanabad, where 17 Christians were killed and 80 were injured in a twin suicide bomb attack in March is a constituency of Mian Shahbaz Sharif, chief minister of Punjab, and the Prime Minister's brother. But he has never visited his constituents to find out about their wellbeing, or to support them during their difficult times. 

I cannot find an example of such recklessness, discrimination and hateful behaviour of any MP towards his own constituents anywhere else in the world, or even elsewhere in Pakistan.

The world's political and religious leaders have expressed their concerns and several reports have been prepared by international organisations witnessing Christians' persecution, but it is all falling on deaf ears and I am disappointed as there are no signs of change. 

Politicians seem oblivious and the lack of will, while the voices from other quarters like academics, artists, writers are also very low compared to what Indian film makers, actors, writers, politicians and academics have done in India against the new wave of discrimination against minorities, and particularly against Muslims. 

The Pakistan Supreme Court has expressed its concern over minorities' security and ordered a special task force and the establishment National Council for Minorities Rights earlier this year, but as far as I am aware, no progress has been made on either matter. 

During the recent hearing of Malik Mumtaz Qadri’s case, the killer of the then governor of the Punjab Salmaan Taseer, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the misapplication and misuse of the blasphemy law - which is considered a root cause of the Christians’ persecution. 

The government and politicians seem unwilling to take any action to bring about changes to the blasphemy law. On the contrary, Islamic groups are asking for Qadri's release and the execution of all those in prison under blasphemy charges, without due process of justice. 

Such behaviour from the government and politicians has disappointed and pushed Christians to the edge. They see no future for themselves and for future generations in Pakistan. Consequently, they have come to the conclusion to flee Pakistan to save their and their children's lives.

Though this is a painful fact, since they are being forced to flee the country they have no other choice and I think it is somehow a wise decision for Christians in the present scenario, as extremism and religious intolerance continues to rise against them and they are under constant attack.

I have to admit that this is not a solution. But as the government and Muslim politicians are turning a blind eye to their persecution. The responsibility to address these issues rests on the shoulders of Christian political and religious leadership to address these issues.

But unfortunately it seems that some of the leadership has compromised and become subservient to the government, while others have lost all hope and interest and have already fled to seek asylum in other countries. 

Intellectuals, NGOs’ workers, journalists and influential individuals have also fled Pakistan, those who are left behind are busy in packing their suitcases because nobody feels safe in Pakistan. There are witnesses that Christians are not safe and have no future in Pakistan. 

The Netherlands has recently designated Pakistani Christians the status of a 'high risk group", while struggles for a similar status are ongoing in different countries. 

The USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom) and UNO have also raised their concerns about the treatment of minorities. Recently the All Party Parliamentarian Group for international Freedom of Religion or Belief, in the House of Lords, organised Evidence Hearing Sessions regarding the 'Plight of Religious Minorities in Pakistan and as Refugees'. 

Lord David Alton has recently come back from visiting Pakistani Christian asylum seekers in Thailand, where thousands of them are living in bad conditions but are not willing to return to Pakistan because of the fear of persecution. 



A few days earlier a team of European MEPs including Mr. Petr Van Dalen, Mr. Arne Gericke and Mr. Marek Jurek, visited Pakistan to get first-hand information about the ongoing persecution of Christians and other religious minorities because of the misapplication and misuse of the blasphemy law. 

They met with Aasia Bibi’s family, the Prime Minister’s advisor on foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz and some other important dignitaries. They also met Christian activists and leaders like Joseph Francis and Bishop Samuel Azariah. I am sure they will use this information to endeavour to bring pressure on the Pakistani government to stop the mistreatment of Christians and other religious minorities. 

But keeping in mind the view of Pakistan's leadership, I have very little hope the situation against Christians and other religious minorities will ever improve. Minorities believe, since they are never accepted equal citizens of the Pakistan and Pakistan was achieved in the name of Islam and as a homeland of Muslims, these are organised, deliberate and sustained attempts of cleansing the country, to make it as pure as its name. - See more at: http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/detail.php?articleid=2582#sthash.8aF3MSyG.dpuf

Pakistan Military Expands Its Power, and Is Thanked for Doing So

By 


The most popular man in public office in Pakistan does not give speeches on television, rarely appears in public and rejects news interviews.
He is Gen. Raheel Sharif, the Pakistani Army chief, who has presided over the country’s armed forces at a time when they are riding high after curbing domestic terrorism and rampant political crime.
Aided by a new-media publicity campaign, the military command’s popularity has helped it quietly but firmly grasp control of the governmental functions it cares about most: security and foreign affairs, along with de facto regulatory power over the news media, according to interviews with Pakistani officials and analysts. In a country with a long history of military coups, the current command has gotten what it wants, edging aside the civilian government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who is not related to General Sharif, without the messiness or the international criticism a complete takeover would bring. And it is being thanked for doing it. “I wouldn’t describe it as a soft coup, but I would definitely say the civilian leadership has yielded space to the military — for their own survival and because there were major failures on their part,” said Talat Masood, a retired lieutenant general and military analyst.
General Sharif, known as General Raheel here, took over the military command late in 2013. He was appointed to the post a few months after the new civilian government was inaugurated, and the country was in trouble. There were suicide bombings, political party killings, rampant crime and violence in its big cities, and assassinations of political leaders. Some politicians were calling for negotiations with the Pakistani Taliban as military efforts to set the militants back appeared to have stalled.
Then the Pakistani Taliban carried out a cruel attack on a school for army families in Peshawar last December, killing 145 people — including 132 schoolchildren methodically gunned down in their classrooms. Supported by a huge public backlash against terrorism, the army ramped up its crackdown on some of the militant groups sheltering in the country’s northwestern tribal areas, especially in North Waziristan. Capital punishment was restored, and the military was handed new power, starting its own counterterrorism court system alongside the badly backlogged and compromised civilian justice system. This year, the Pakistani Taliban have managed to carry out only a single major suicide bombing. The army’s success against the Taliban emboldened it to take on violent political parties and criminal gangs in the country’s biggest city, Karachi, through a paramilitary group known as the Sindh Rangers. Despite complaints of human rights abuses in Karachi, and millions of internally displaced people from the tribal areas, most Pakistanis were simply relieved to see the violence hugely reduced.
Through it all, General Sharif’s public appearances have been less ostentatious than those of some of his predecessors. But at the same time, his face has become ubiquitous on social media, after giving a free hand to the officer commanding the Inter-Services Public Relations office, the military’s media arm, to modernize that service.
The ISPR had long been headed by lower-ranking officers, and it remained decidedly lodged in the analog era. But by this year, the leader of the office, Asim Saleem Bajwa, had been promoted to lieutenant general — a three-star rank normally reserved for corps commanders — and his agency had become an impressively slick machine. General Bajwa’s Twitter account has more than 1.5 million followers, and the agency’s Facebook account has more than 2.8 million likes. A film division is pumping out offerings for television, as it had long done, but it has added short videos tailored to YouTube-style platforms.
The social media accounts show in daily detail the commander’s movements — visiting the front lines in Waziristan or reviewing troops. Video links showed army units in combat, sometimes the same day it occurred, and troops helping earthquake victims. Professionally produced martyr-style videos show, for instance, a mother mourning a son killed in the field, who returns from the dead to present her with his beret.
The ISPR declined to comment for this article unless a draft of it was submitted to the office for advance review, according to a spokesman for the agency.
The Pakistani news media is clearly reflecting the shift in influence. When Prime Minister Sharif visited Washington on Oct. 22, for instance, the visit did not get nearly the attention of General Sharif’s current five-day visit to Washington.
In recent weeks, General Sharif has seemed less circumspect about the new pecking order. The military press office noted, for instance, that at a meeting of army corps commanders last Tuesday, the general was “concerned” that the civilian government was not doing enough to follow up the military’s success at clearing out the frontier areas with effective governance. The clearly implied scolding sent shock waves through the political establishment, but few dared to criticize the military — something even opposition parties rarely do now. The Pakistani news media, in particular, has largely stopped open questioning of the military’s increased power. Pakistani journalists say the military no longer has to bring intimidation to bear, as it long had, because most of the criticism has gone quiet. At the military’s insistence, a government watchdog body has ordered broadcast media to stop airing anything that could be viewed as support for terrorist groups — a notably broad definition.
Even some of the military’s critics in the news media now say the relative peace has been a trade-off nearly everyone supports.
“My honest opinion is that most of the pressure now is from within ourselves,” said Rana Jawad, the news director at GEO, a leading private television network. “One of the reasons why there’s no effort to counter the claims of ISPR is that the situation on the ground has improved drastically. It’s a big thing for me: I used to report on 50 dead, 40 dead, 30 dead almost every day, and there’s nothing of this sort now.”
Mr. Jawad is no apologist for the military, however. He was on a cellphone call in 2014 with the channel’s news anchor in Karachi, Hamid Mir, when an attacker shot Mr. Mir six times. “It was terrible; I could hear his screams and helplessness and the shots,” Mr. Jawad said. GEO journalists blamed the military’s powerful intelligence arm, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, and the channel even broadcast a picture of the agency’s leader at the time, Lt. Gen. Zaheer ul-Islam, which some saw as an implication that he had been behind the attack. That led to legal action against the channel that continues, and some local cable operators have refused to carry GEO. “We suffered a lot from the military,” Mr. Jawad said. “We were beaten, hounded, brought to our knees by the powerful military, so we know.” Nonetheless, he added: “I see a marked improvement in the security environment in Pakistan, fewer and fewer Pakistanis dying unnecessarily, and I cannot reject this.” The military’s triumphant crackdown on militants has had little effect on the war next door in Afghanistan, however, and the command still appears to be playing a double game when it comes to using some militants as proxies.
In particular, military analysts said, the pressure does not extend to the Afghan Taliban, many of whose leaders live openly in the Pakistani city of Quetta. And the military has avoided tangling with the Haqqani network, a close Afghan Taliban ally whose members have carried out some of the deadliest attacks in Afghanistan but are mostly based in remote districts of Pakistan near the border. The double standard led to the blocking of one American military aid payment of $300 million to the Pakistani military this year, under a congressionally mandated requirement to certify progress in fighting the Haqqanis. An additional $1 billion in military aid under a separate program this year was not affected by that requirement, however. Amid the Pakistani command’s clearly ascendant streak, Mr. Masood, the military analyst and former lieutenant general, worries that the military may go too far, preventing the country’s still-immature democratic institutions from developing.
“Success speaks for itself. They did clear Waziristan, and General Sharif does get credit for that,” he said. “But success can change. If they overplay the military card and continue to build an inflated image, it could boomerang. They need to allow civilians their space. But I’m afraid the lust for power is such that they don’t always understand that.”

Bilawal Bhutto, Bakhtawar Bhutto and Aseefa Bhutto condoled with Shehla Raza



Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari and Aseefa Bhutto Zardari visited the residence of Deputy Speaker Sindh Assembly Shehla Raza and Condoled with her and other family members over the sad demise of her mother. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari and Aseefa Bhutto Zardari offered prayers to Almighty Allah to rest departed soul in eternal peace and grant courage and fortitude to her family members to bear this loss with equanimity.



https://ppppunjab.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/bilawal-bhutto-zardari-bakhtawar-bhutto-zardari-and-aseefa-bhutto-condoled-with-shehla-raza/

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

French Music - Indila - S.O.S

Video - Paris Attacks: French and British fans sing La Marseillaise together at Wembley Stadium

Video - Clashes as Greece marks uprising anniversary

When terror strikes, Saudi Arabia evades responsibility

Laila Lalami



We cannot defeat IS without defeating Wahhabi theology. And that means spending as much effort in defending liberal ideas..

What happened in Paris on November 13 has happened before, in a shopping district of Beirut on November 12, in the skies over Egypt on October 31, at a cultural centre in Turkey on July 20, a beach resort in Tunisia on June 26 – and nearly every day in Syria for the last four years.

The scenario is by now familiar to all of us. News of the killings will appear on television and radio. There will be cries of horror and sorrow, a few hashtags on Twitter, perhaps even a change of avatars on Facebook. Our leaders will make staunch promises to bring the terrorists to justice, while also claiming greater power of surveillance over their citizens. And then life will resume exactly as before.

Except for the victims' families. For them, time will split into a Before and After. We owe these families, of every race, creed, and nationality, more than sorrow, more than anger. We owe them justice.

We must call to account Islamic State, a nihilistic cult of death that sees the world in black and white, with no shades of grey in between.

We must call to account Bashar al-Assad, whose response to peaceful protesters in the spring of 2011 was to send water cannons and military tanks to meet them.

We must call to account the governments of the United States, France, Britain, Russia, Iran, and many others, which lent support and succour to tyrant after tyrant in the Middle East and North Africa, and whose interventions appear to create 10 terrorists for every one they kill.

We must call to account George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, whose disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent disbanding of the Iraqi army destabilised the entire region.

We must call to account the Saudi kings – Salman, Abdullah, and Fahd – whose funding of Wahhabi doctrine gave rise to the scourge of Islamic extremism.

When I was a child in Morocco, no clerics told me what to do, what to read or not read, what to believe, what to wear. And if they did, I was free not to listen. Faith was more than its conspicuous manifestations. But things began to change in the 1980s. It was the height of the Cold War and Arab tyrants saw an opportunity: they could hold on to power indefinitely by repressing the dissidents in their midst – most of them secular leftists – and by encouraging the religious right wing, with tacit or overt approval from the US and other Western allies.
Into the void created by the decimation of the Arab world's secular left, the Wahhabis stepped in, with almost unlimited financial resources. Wahhabi ideas spread throughout the region, not because they have any merit – they don't – but because they were and remain well funded. We cannot defeat IS without defeating the Wahhabi theology that birthed it. And to do so would require spending as much effort and money in defending liberal ideas.
I am a novelist. Every year, I spend a great deal of my time giving readings or lectures at which, almost unfailingly, I am asked about Islam and Muslims and the wars now consuming the Middle East. I try to explain and contextualise, remind people about history and politics, bring in some culture and art into the mix. But every few months, when another terrorist attack happens, the work I do seems to be for nothing. What chance does someone like me have when compared with the power of well-funded networks?

The beheadings, the crucifixions, the destruction of cultural heritage that IS practices – none of these are new. They all happened, and continue to happen, in Saudi Arabia too. The government of Saudi Arabia has beheaded more people this year than IS. It persecutes Shias and atheists. It has slowly destroyed sites of cultural and religious significance around Mecca and Medina.
Illustration: John Spooner
Illustration: John Spooner
To almost universal indifference, it has been bombing Yemen for seven months. Yet whenever terror strikes, it escapes notice and evades responsibility. In this, it is aided and abetted by Western governments, who buy oil from tyrants and sell them weapons, while paying lip service to human rights.

I have no patience any more for people who claim that Muslims do not speak out. They do, every day. Muslims are the primary victims of IS, and its primary resisters. It is an insult to every one of the hundreds of thousands of Muslim victims of terrorism to lump them with the lunatics who commit terror. The truth is that IS unleashes its nihilistic violence on anyone – Muslim, Christian or Jew; believer or unbeliever – who doesn't subscribe to their cult.

I wish I could do something for the victims of terrorist violence. But I am a writer; words are all I have. And all I know is that I want, with all my heart, to preserve and celebrate what IS wishes to destroy: a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural life.

We Just Sold Another Billion Dollars Worth of Weapons to Our Frenemies in Saudi Arabia




As part of its ongoing effort to promote "stability within the region," the United States inked another giant arms deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on Monday. This one was for more than 10,000 advanced air-to-surface munitions like laser-guided bombs, "bunker buster" bombs, and MK84 general purpose bombs—which the Saudis have been raining down on Yemen since March. The deal, reached a week after members of the Gulf Cooperation Council raised concerns over its dwindling arms stockpiles and a few days after the end of the Dubai Airshow, is worth $1.29 billion.
That's a small fraction of the more than $100 billion in arms sales that Washington and Riyadh have conducted in the past five years. And it comes just over a month after a Senate panel voted to delay weapons sales to Saudi Arabia after growing concerns over its reportedly indiscriminate bombing campaign in Yemen. The conflict between the US-backed, Saudi-led coalition against antigovernment rebels has caused more than 2,300 civilian deaths, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The latest deal, which comes just days after the ISIS terrorist attack in Paris, highlights the Saudis' balancing act: On one hand, the ruling House of Saud is part of the coalition conducting air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, but it has also been accused of harboring funders who have given aid to ISIS as recently as the summer of 2014. And the kingdom's history of exporting its Wahhabist strain of Sunni Islam has had worldwide implications. Writing in Foreign Policy, Daniel Benjamin, a former State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, has called Wahhabism "a devastating invasive species in Islam's enormous ecosystem—it's the zebra mussel, the Asian Tiger mosquito, and the emerald ash borer wrapped into one." He continues: "The consequences have been fateful: A solid line of causation from the slaughter in Islamic State-controlled Iraq and the tragedy of 9/11 traces back directly to Saudi evangelization and the many radical mosques and extremist NGOs it spawned."
The Saudis problematic relationship with extremism isn't news. In US embassy cables leaked by Wikileaks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in 2009, "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." She said that the United States needed to keep encouraging the Saudi government to do more to stop "the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia-based sources to terrorists and extremists worldwide." The cables also list Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates as major sources of money for militants. These three nations are part of the Saudi Arabia-led coalition in  Yemen, and each has bought weapons from the United States, including guided missiles andApache helicopters (to Qatar), Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods for their F/A-18s (to Kuwait), and guided bombs—a lot of them (to the UAE).
In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, Charlie Pierce of Esquire called for the United States to change its stance on its "Middle Eastern 'allies'—the states and bankers and political elites—who persist in funding mass murder." He argues that this means cutting off not just the money trail, but also arms. "It goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway—not another bullet will be sold to you, let alone advanced warplanes, until this act gets cleaned up to our satisfaction. If that endangers your political position back home, that's your problem, not ours. You are no longer trusted allies."
The Saudis have been staunch US allies since World War II. Should the renewed push to defeat ISIS force a reassessment of that relationship?

Video - Secretary Kerry: We're going to eliminate ISIS

Video - John Kerry on Paris Attacks praises the "extraordinary response and courage of the French people"

Video - Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Turnbull in Manila

Video - President Obama Delivers Remarks in Manila Harbor

The Middle East after the Arab Spring, more divided than ever





Experts at the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences presented an analysis of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. The main causes of these conflicts appear to be deeply divided local societies rather than external factors.
The article is first published in Russian by the Russian International Affairs Council.
In a collective monograph entitled "Conflicts and Wars of the 21st Century", the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences examined the development of conflict situations in the Middle East and North Africa.
The authors looked at the age-old conflicts (the situation in Lebanon and Iraq, the situation around the Western Sahara, the Islamic factor in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict), as well as the issues behind the formation and evolution of new hotbeds of new tensions, born as a result of the Arab Spring. These latter conflicts include Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, and two sub-regional situations – in the Persian Gulf and the Maghreb countries.
The monograph presents a multi-faceted picture of the Middle East situation after the Arab Spring. This is evidenced by the very logic of the layout of this book, which is composed of three sections – “Regional and Global Picture,” “A New Dimension to Long-Standing Armed Confrontations,” and “Birth of the Arab Spring.”
The study also raises issues related to the economic impact of the Arab Spring and the “archaization” of Middle Eastern and North African societies.
Middle East and North Africa: What is the essence of the conflict?
In comparison with earlier works by the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, this edition not only looks at materials across a longer period of time, but also includes new themes and twists.
The first section analyzes the economic implications of the transformations that have taken place in the Middle East. According to Alexander Filonik, author of the chapter “The Arab Economy: External Threats and Internal Challenges,” the detonator of the current Middle East conflict was economic imbalances, the economic vulnerability of “capital-deficient countries” (the most striking example is Syria), and only in the last instance – “the provoking of conflicts by outside forces.”
Another idea that seems indisputable is that of Irina Zvyagelskaya (“Archaization and Conflicts in the Middle East”) about the imposing of “rules, which are able to deprive a state of its raison d’être... replacing real goal setting by myths and pseudo-historical nonsense, to fragment any society and lead it to disaster.”
The quality of this monograph rests, in particular, on the analysis of two sub-regional situations, which previously have not been studied in depth. At the same time, demonstrated is both the stability of the monarchical regimes in the Persian Gulf region and the instability generated by the Arab Spring (Elena Melkumyan). There is also consideration of the reasons for the fundamentally different responses to regional and international challenges in the Maghreb countries – Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco (Vasily Kuznetsov).
The first section also includes chapters by Vitaly Naumkin (“Islamic Radicalism and External Interference in Deeply Divided Societies of the Middle East”) and Dina Malysheva (“Conflict in the Middle East, in the Context of the Changing International Political Environment”).
The main thing that should be emphasized is the unity of the group of authors in their efforts to show the internal causes of conflicts and wars. Of course, this does not mean that in the book they ignore external influences as factors that have promoted socio-political conflagrations in the Middle East and North Africa.
Nevertheless, most authors believe that these factors were not the root cause of the Arab Spring, but were only superimposed on the more significant internal circumstances – the deeply divided local societies.
According to Naumkin, “The level of violence during internal conflicts, the extent of radicalization and the potential of the Islamist movement is higher in the Middle East... in those societies that can be considered as deeply divided and had become the objects of... outside interference.” This view is also expressed by Malysheva.

Also read: Russia Direct Report: 'Russia's New Strategy in the Middle East'

Conflicts in countries, conflicts around countries
It would seem that this subject of long-standing conflicts in the regional areas of ​​the Middle East and North Africa by now could be considered as exhausted. The contribution made to the description of these conflicts is actually reduced to the introduction into circulation of new facts confirming their continued state of stagnation.
However, this is at first glance. In reading the monograph by the Institute of Oriental Studies, one learns that some of these conflicts are still insufficiently described by historians. A realistic analysis of the situation in the region is offered by the authors of chapters included in the second section of the book: Alexey Sarabyev (“The Situation in Lebanon”), Ildar Minyazhetdinov (“Balkanization of Iraq”), Sergei Serebrov (“Revolution and Conflict in Yemen”), and Maria Volodina (“Western Sahara”).
Moreover, in the chapter “The Islamic Factor in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” Alexander Demchenko offers his take on a key element in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is often not analyzed in detail by other researchers.
The third section of the monograph is devoted to the countries where the Arab Spring took place. These include chapters by Irina Mokhova (on the change in the position of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), Alexey Podtserob (on the intra-Libyan conflict after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi), Boris Dolgov (on the Syrian conflict) and Vladimir Akhmedov (on the armed Islamist opposition in the Syrian uprising). This section also includes a chapter, written by Mr. Dolgov, on the conflict between the government and the Islamist opposition in Algeria in the 1990s.
The absence in this section of a chapter on Tunisia is fully compensated for by the “Tunisian” conclusions, which can be found in the chapter by Kuznetsov. The presence of two Syrian articles is justified by the fact that they deal with different aspects of the crisis, but then again, the inclusion of an Algerian chapter seems rather artificial. We believe that this would have been more appropriate in the first section of the monograph, but only if it were presented in a theoretical context. Moreover, some articles of the third section, like in the preceding one, raise some questions.
Reflections and objections
Formed under the influence of many factors, Russia’s view on the situation in Iraq comes from the fact that the only reason for the continuing violence in the country was the American-led military intervention in March 2003. This view, on the whole, is shared by Minyazhetdinov. Undoubtedly, the entrance of U.S. Armed Forces, and their subsequent actions as the “occupying power,” subsequently destroyed the balance of power that existed in Iraq, opening the possibility for new competition arising between ethnic and religious groups, and their representative parties and movements.
DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE IRAQI STATE, A UNIFIED “NATIONAL” SOCIAL BOND WAS NEVER FORMED IN SOCIETY, AND AN EXTERNAL FORCE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS TO SOLVE ITS OWN PROBLEMS
Nevertheless, the author of the article also stresses that at the time of the American invasion (and much earlier), Iraqi society was composed of a diverse ethno-confessional clan and tribal structure, and government bodies were imposed over the traditional clan and tribal system and tribal institutions. In other words, during the existence of the Iraqi state, a unified “national” social bond was never formed in society, and an external force took advantage of this to solve its own problems.
If numerous warring Iraqi elite had been unable to reach consensus on the future of their country, if their actions (even after the withdrawal of U.S. troops) had Balkanized Iraq, if during the period of external control, each of these groups fought for favors of the “occupation administration,” what should be viewed as the root causes of the continuing anarchy and instability? In any case, the cause was not the U.S. invasion, even if the “occupation administration” had really made countless mistakes.
It is worth noting that all of the authors of the third section (except Podtserob and Dolgov) were only interested in certain aspects of the Arab Spring events, although, of course, these were important. Analysis of their development in various country-specific versions makes no sense. This approach is justified – and works have already been written on Egypt, as well as on Syria, concerning the emergence of local revolutions. However, the question that immediately arises: Do the authors really believe that these events can be considered as revolutions?
Mokhova (who wrote about the evolution of the Muslim Brotherhood in “post-revolutionary” Egypt) has a positive answer to this question, and the roll back of the revolution to its original point becomes obvious. She writes about the political transformation of Egypt, which, even if it did not return back to the era of the Republic of Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, still put an end to the expectations and hopes of 2011.
Moreover, the most important conclusion of the author is this: “The actions of the Brotherhood and of the military showed there was an absence of ‘political pluralism’ in Egypt, a country that, in comparison with other countries of the Arab world, took almost the longest time to complete the path to modernization.”
Mokhova posed an even more important question: To what extent can the Western model of democracy be applied to non-Western societies with different political cultures, traditions, and worldviews? From this, it follows that the time after 1952, when in Egypt, also as a result of a military coup, Gamal Abdel Nasser to power, was an era of archaism, which radically changed society, its behavior and political leanings.
Neither Podtserob nor Dolgov (in his “Syrian” chapter) lean towards a positive answer to the question: Can we consider the events in Libya and Syria as revolutions? Podtserob notes that these “Arab Troubles” destroyed “the once prosperous Jamahiriya”. Again, according to Dolgov, even though there are internal problems present in Syria, the main reasons for the continuing crisis are external factors – namely, the “support provided to armed anti-government groups by outside forces that are trying to use the Syrian internal conflict for the realization of their own strategic goals.”
This view is derived from the current Russian position on the situation in Libya and Syria. However, does it correspond to the idea of a deeply divided society? If we consider the interference of external forces as being the main factor in internal conflicts and wars, then why in this connection, for example, we do not consider the role of other external actors in Syria, including Iran and pro-Iranian forces? Why not analyze the Syrian direction of Russia’s foreign policy? However, the bias towards “external forces” is successfully compensated for by the thoughtful analysis of the situation in Syria made in the chapter written by Akhmedov.
We have to admit that the authors of this study were not fully able to convey the principle of internal factors as being primary in causing the wars and conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. Now, is the reason behind the actual conflicts themselves? Probably not, because the authors have shown their own, not always coinciding, preferences that determine their views on the issues that they have analyzed.
However, this does not mean that the quality of that monograph is placed into question, especially since unanimity in any scientific work is impossible and even dangerous. On the contrary, the absence of this unanimity makes this new edition, put out by the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, worthy for a wide range of readers.
Today, it not only gives the most complete picture of the situation in North Africa and the Middle East, but also makes one think, and challenges the views of its authors on the issues that are of fundamental importance for the whole world.