Unholy Wars

The US Calls the latest Iran’s reaction on Nuke Plan ‘Outrageous’

admin — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:10:00 +0000

The United States said that comments by Iran’s top nuclear negotiator that New Delhi received preferential international treatment on nuclear proliferation issues were “outrageous”. “We have seen the comments. They are outrageous,” US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in response to last week’s comments by Iranian official Ali Larijani that Iran had a right to pursue peaceful nuclear activities. Last week, Iranian official Ali Larijani had said:”Iran submits to international inspections while several nations that already possess nuclear weapons do not. Countries that produce nuclear weapons are neither members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nor signatories to the (nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Americans say (to Iran) ‘we doubt and we suspect your intentions, you may in future develop nuclear weapons,’ while IAEA reports say that Iran is 10 years away from being capable of developing weapons. But compare that to India, it does have nuclear weapons but they have extensive relations in the nuclear field. This dual standard is detrimental to international security.” Burns, who held talks with Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran on a landmark nuclear deal between India and the US signed in July, said India could not be compared to Iran on the nonproliferation issue. “How is it possible to compare India with Iran? India has been very careful with its nuclear programme,” he said, adding that Iran has been conducting secret nuclear research for 18 years. “A government that has earned the criticism of Russia, China, the European Union … should suspend its nuclear programme,” he added. He reiterated the US stand that Iran should be referred to the United Nations Security Council for pursuing its nuclear programme.”Iran is a threat to international peace. It has overstepped the boundaries of international law,” Burns said. “It should know that there is a penalty for that.” Under the Indo-US nuclear deal, signed by US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July, India would get advanced nuclear technology which it has been denied for 30 years for conducting nuclear tests and not signing the NPT. The deal has to be approved by the US Congress and the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. Critics of the deal say it will send the wrong message on non-proliferation to other nations.In the wake of the agreement, India has appeared to fall in line with Western efforts to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme. In September, India voted in favour of a resolution at the IAEA drafted by Britain, Germany and France, sometimes called the EU-3, to refer Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council.

Al Qaeda No. 2 too releases audio tape

admin — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:10:00 +0000

Al Qaeda’s No. 2 Follows bin Laden’s Lead and Resurfaces Just a day after Osama bin Laden resurfaced in a lengthy audiotape, a new recording by his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, appeared on January 20, praising the “martyrs of holy war” in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and elsewhere. This development has put the speculation about the death of al Jawahiri in the air-strike by the US inside Pakistan, on Afghan border, at rest. The CIA confirmed that the voice on the 18-minute audiotape, posted on an Internet forum that has carried Al Qaeda communiques before, was Mr. Zawahiri’s. He read a poem honoring the “martyrs of jihad,” or holy war, and dedicated it to “Muslim brothers everywhere, to the mujahedeen brothers in Islam’s fortified borderlines against the Zionist-Crusader campaign in Palestine and Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya and to the lions chasing the crusaders’ gangs and hired hands in Afghanistan’s mountains and valleys and its wounded capital, Kabul.” “I am honored to present this mujahedeen poem, written by Maulai Muhibbulla al-Qandahari, who carried the pen and the sword and was known in the circles of scholars and the training camps and the battlefields of jihad,” he said. It was not immediately clear when the recording was made and whether it had any connection to the release of the Mr. bin Laden’s recording on Thursday. There was no mention, either, of last week’s missile attacks by the United States on a Pakistani village in the country’s remote northeast, where Mr. Zawahiri was thought to be attending a dinner. Mr. Zawahiri appears not to have been present, but his son-in-law and two senior members of Al Qaeda are believed to have been among those killed, Pakistani officials said. The US Press seems to be helping Osama bin Laden and his deputy images, larger than life by providing platform of media to them on platter. Every terrorist wanted to misuse the media. These terrorists from the Middleeast are no exceptions. Better, if the US Government ignores them.

Osama bin Laden: A short biographical sketch

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 07:09:00 +0000

Bin Laden is the man who defied America, who gored the only superpower and got away with it. He is now a symbol –Abu Jihad, the father of the holy struggle — and a spiritual leader, an inspiration and a role model to millions. Much as Che Guevara was as important in life as in death to the communist cause in Latin America, bin Laden will be a force for years. In large part, that’s because he founded not only his relatively small jihadist group, al Qaeda, but also created or rebuilt terrorist organizations in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, the Pacific Rim, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Those organizations took over from the original core of al Qaeda (Arabic for “the base”) when the United States belatedly invaded the sanctuary that bin Laden had created in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. When that base was largely destroyed, its offspring took over the struggle. Al Qaeda-related groups staged twice as many attacks in the 36 months after 9/11 as al Qaeda itself had in the previous 36 months, according to State Department reports. The second stage of jihad that bin Laden seems to have planned is still unfolding today. Son of a Yemeni businessman turned Saudi construction magnate, Osama was among the youngest of the 54 children whom his wealthy father, Mohammed bin Laden, had by multiple wives. Although Osama deeply admired his father, he seldom spent time with him and was raised as much by his stepfather and older brothers as by his beloved sire. The most important of those brothers to Osama may have been Salem bin Laden, who took over the family construction business after Mohammed bin Laden’s death in a 1967 plane crash. But the strong-willed, gregarious Salem, like many of Osama’s other siblings, seemed to love America and might not have tolerated his brother’s eventual loathing for it; Salem spent time with Houston swells and died in Texas while flying his own sports aircraft. Had that Arab pilot not crashed in America in May 1988, one wonders if four others would have on Sept. 11, 2001. Instead, the apparently impressionable Osama fell under more malevolent influences. Among those who shaped bin Laden ideologically, there were three key players: Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam and Ayman Zawahiri. As a student, Osama read works by Qutb, an Islamist Egyptian firebrand given the death penalty in 1964 by the country’s secular dictator, Gamal Abdel Nasser. His writings and reputation — as well as his updated versions of the “Islam is the answer” political creed espoused since the 1920s by the Muslim Brotherhood — appealed to bin Laden. Bergen flatly states that bin Laden, influenced at university by Qutb’s brother, joined the Brotherhood, a secretive, allegedly nonviolent group whose tentacles reach throughout the Arab world today. It was also at university (although his brothers had attended American or British colleges, Osama studied management and economics at King Abd al-Aziz University in Jedda, Saudi Arabia) that bin Laden met Abdullah Azzam, a radical Palestinian professor of Muslim studies. Following the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Azzam formed the so-called Services Bureau in Peshawar, Pakistan, to recruit, coordinate and assist Arab volunteers rushing to help the Afghan resistance. Bin Laden, who had inherited some money from his father’s estate, helped out and became Azzam’s deputy — and, eventually, his rival. The Services Bureau opened branches throughout the United States but was seen by the U.S. government as a friendly group supporting President Regan’s anti-Soviet policies. By 1987, bin Laden’s all-Arab unit of jihadists had withstood a 22-day siege by Soviet special forces at a camp named al Masada, the Lion’s Den, that he built near the eastern Afghanistan village of Jaji. Showing his skill with propaganda, bin Laden publicized the inconsequential battle of Jaji throughout the Muslim world. He became a hero; Azzam died mysteriously in 1989. During the jihad against the Soviets, bin Laden met an Egyptian doctor named Ayman Zawahiri who had volunteered to patch up wounded Afghan fighters. Zawahiri was well-educated and thoroughly radicalized; he had been tortured by Egyptian authorities in the investigation following President Anwar Sadat’s 1981 assassination by Islamist gunmen. The doctor opened bin Laden’s eyes to the possibilities of using the Services Bureau’s newfound network to help spread jihad not just in Afghanistan but around the globe. Although Zawahiri did not give up his own terrorist organization, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, to become bin Laden’s deputy until the late 1990s, the Egyptian fanatic soon became bin Laden’s key partner. Zawahiri, in turn, was linked to the so-called blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who was arrested in 1993 for plotting bombings in the New York area, including the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers. Bergen’s sources suggest that the blind sheik’s connection to Zawahiri ultimately led to al Qaeda’s thoughts of even more spectacular attacks in New York.

Pakistan Succeeded in Blocking Talk by Rape Victim

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 07:08:00 +0000

Mukhtar Mai, the Pakistani woman whose defiant response to being gang-raped by order of a tribal court brought her worldwide attention, was denied a chance to speak at the United Nations on Friday after Pakistan protested that it was the same day the country’s prime minister was visiting. Ms. Mai had long been scheduled to make an appearance called “An Interview With Mukhtar Mai: The Bravest Woman on Earth” in the United Nations television studios, sponsored by the office for nongovernmental organizations, the Virtue Foundation and the Asian-American Network Against Abuse of Human Rights.But on Thursday night the organizers were informed that the program would have to be postponed because of Pakistan’s objections. Efforts by the New York Times to secure comments of the visiting Pakistan’s Prime Minister and the UN officials in this regard proved futile exercises. Back Ground: In 2002, a village council in Pakistan sentenced Ms. Mai to be gang-raped for the supposed misconduct of her brother. Pakistani women in such circumstances often commit suicide, but Ms. Mai instead successfully challenged her rapists in court. She gave the compensation money she received to schools in her remote district. On a previous visit to New York in November, Ms. Mai, also known as Mukhtaran Bibi, was hailed in a video tribute by Laura Bush at a Lincoln Center banquet as a person who “proves that one woman really can change the world.” This was not the first time that Pakistan’s government had interfered in Ms. Mai’s travels. President Pervez Musharraf blocked her from taking a trip to the United States in June and then relented last fall when Glamour magazine honored her as its “Woman of the Year.” In an interview, Ms. Mai said: “I feel disappointed. I was not going to say anything bad about Pakistan. I was just going to talk about my work and what people are doing.”

"Hands off Cuba" slogans to greet Bush during his India visit

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 07:08:00 +0000

When US President Bush visits India in March 2006, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in league with other Left parties in India has planned to greet him with slogans such as “hands off Cuba” and “stop the hostile activities against Cuba”. The Left parties would organise an anti-imperialist movement across India. This would culminate in a protest during the proposed visit of Bush to India. The third Asia Pacific Regional Cuba Solidarity Conference, which concluded at Chennai (India) on January 22 adopted a declaration, condemning the ‘cruel and unlawful blockade’ of Cuba by the United States and wanted political and social organisation of workers, farmers, agricultural labourers, youth, women, students, intellectuals and artists to come trogether in Cuba solidarity activities. “As the machinations and manoeuvres of U.S. imperialism is being intensified in the recent past, the solidarity activities, both political and material, also need to be further strengthened in different regions of each country as well as at National (India) and continental (Asia) levels.”

Foreign Paedophiles Prey upon Indian Children

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:07:00 +0000

India has become one of the hottest child sex tourism destinations. A report, ‘Trafficking in Women and Children in India’, sponsored by a statutory body, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), highlights this, mentionining not just Goa, which since the 1990s has uncovered rackets by Freddy Peats and Helmut Brinkmann, but also Alleppy and Ernakulam districts of Kerala province, where houseboat tourism has lately seen a boon. The NHRC report says the problem of child sex tourism in India is compounded as there is a ‘silence of the community and an unwillingness to speak out’ on this matter.

The U.S. Under the Sway of Godmen

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:07:00 +0000

The United States of America continues to be big market for godmen of all shades, Buddhist and Hindu. It has been indeed the India’s cutting-edge exports since Rajneesh of Osho fame landed in the U.S. in 1990s, followed by the Karmapa cult of the Tibetian Buddhists finding a ready and prosperous market. Here is an interesting story about the miraculous powers of godmen which has the potential of entrancing willing audiences, fed up with the materialistic pursuit and searching for a solace in the company of godmen. One of the favoured godman went to tend thousands of distressed souls in Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu province of India just after the area was hit by the devastating tsunami. As his cavalcade of countless cars neared the spot, someone, possibly an evil rationalist, set off a wicked rumour. A second tsunami was about to strike. The godman made a quick assessment of his own powers versus those of the cosmos. Finding these a total mismatch, he turned his car around to hightail it to safety. The result of the entire caravan doing the same in panic caused the biggest traffic jam seen on that stretch of the highway.

Pakistan continues to be at the crossroads

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:06:00 +0000

The U.S. striked in the Pakistan’s territory in search of Talibans without taking the Pakistani rulers in confidence. The Talibans were goomed by Pakistan in connivance with the U.S. CIA. Indeed it was an attack on the sovereignty of a nation. But Pakistan could not and did not do anything barring the vailed protest. However, Pakistanis were on roads in several cities to protest against this approach of the U.S.A. In Pakistan, most politicians and all military rulers have manipulated religion in an attempt to strengthen their hold or to cling to power. This unholy alliance between the purveyors of religion and the military has been forged over time. Little wonder, Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf admitted that Pakistan had sponsored ‘militancy’ an euphemism for terrorism (just as ‘fidayeen’ is a glorification of suicide terrorists). Vikram Sood, a former chief of the RAW, the India’s external intelligence agency writes in the Hindustan Times( an Indian newspaper): “Unable to develop its own identity, Pakistan has lived far too long as a utility agency or a service industry where jehad has been outsourced.

Latin America – A Thorn in the U.S.’s Flesh

admin — Sun, 13 May 2012 07:06:00 +0000

Latin America, considered by the United States of America as its backyard, is fast becoming a growing movement against the neo-liberal economics of the Washington Consensus and against the Washington domination. We are watching the survival of Cuba, despite the four-decade old economic embargo, imposed by the U.S., the changes in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, the victory of a popular movement in Bolivia, and possibly a change in Peru in a few months time. But does in the post cold-war scenario in the world, these changes matter to the United States of America, the leader of the unipolar world after the demise of the rival U.S.S.R.? These developments in Latin Americas are being hailed as a shift in favour of popular movements for which the Left have waited for a quarter of a century. Leftists believe that the Washington Consensus has received its first serious challenge within Latin America. It has come initially in the shape of the Bolivian revolution in Venezuela. These pro-Left developments in Latin America are nothing but minor irritants for the U.S. which is engaged in the important job of ‘War on Terrorism’ in the world. Unless the Latin American countries, rich in natural resources percolates the fruits of development to the masses, the euphoria of a Left swing may be shortlived.

The U.S. bashing continues

admin — Sun, 13 May 2012 07:05:00 +0000

An unnecessary controversy has been raged on the reported statement of the U.S. Ambassador to India David C. Mulford. India’s foreign office, in a panic reaction, summoned the Ambassador and gave a dressing down to him. Under the heading ‘ Reject the American Fatwa (the Islamic religious decree)’, The Hindu, an India newspaper comments editorially: ‘ In publicly warning India, on (Indian) Republic Day eve, to vote against Iran or else, United States Ambassador David Mulford has outrageously crossed the line of diplomatic propriety. It is a typical case of making a mountain out of a molehill. The poor chap Mulford has attempted to clear his position in a statement which is being reproduced here. I regret that my comments to the Press Trust of India (PTI) today have been taken out of context. As I noted to the PTI reporters, Iran is a matter where we know India will vote on the basis of its own national interest. Because of the confusion that earlier reports have sown, I have released below the full text of my comments on Iran. Can we come to Iran? Now the vote is coming up on February 2. The Indian stand so far has been non-committal on supporting referral to the Security Council. They are saying that it should be done within the framework of the IAEA. Now how does U.S Ambassador David Mulford look at this? : What’s India saying? Give that to me again? They want it within the framework which they said last time also. IAEA. They want that it should be resolved amicably within the IAEA. IAEA framework. They don’t want it to go to the U.N. Security Council. Well, I mean the U.S. position is, and was at the time of the September resolution, and the resolution itself found Iran in violation and it was not at that moment immediately referred to the United Nations Security Council because it was agreed that there would be a sort of window of time provided to Iran to respond to diplomacy on the issue. That’s how I understand the September vote took place. And India’s vote at that time was, and I believe it’s clearly demonstrable, it was a vote that was based on India’s judgment of its own national interest. You know India didn’t decide to vote to please the United States. They don’t want Iran to have the nuclear weapon. As they put it to me, there are enough nuclear weapons in this neighbourhood, they don’t need another neighbour with nuclear weapons and they are opposed to that. So, now we come to the meeting where the proposal is going to be to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and India will once again have to make a determination of what its national interests are and I think that’s an issue that can be left firmly in the hands of the Indian government to determine. Are you going to have any talks with the government of India, before the visit? I don’t think so, well, I mean obviously we will, we have made it known to them, I would say two points. One is that we would very much like their support because India has arrived on the world stage and is a very, very important player in the world, and if it opposes Iran having a nuclear weapon we think they should record this in the vote. The second point is, and this is an observation that we have passed on – you know an observation is a neutral statement – and that is, that if they decide that they don’t want to vote for this, our view is that the effect on members of Congress with regard to this civil nuclear initiative will be devastating. Devastating? Devastating. I mean I think the Congress will simply stop considering the matter. I think the initiative will die in the Congress. Not because the Administration would want it to, but the Congress will, you already saw in September the reaction that came from members of Congress when they thought India might not vote. And you remember when they did vote there was an outburst of strong support for India. So again I think this is part of the calculation that India has to keep in mind. It isn’t just the United States, I think the Nuclear Suppliers Group would say, wait a minute, if we are going to make this very special change for, you know, one time change, you need to change for India in the nuclear field, and they don’t stand up on this issue, why should we make the change. So I think it would affect the Nuclear Suppliers Group as well. In other words India will have to keep this as a factor? We made that observation. I mean they will have to make the decision. It’s up to them like it was last time. They will have to vote their national interest on this.