Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - nestopwar

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 57
766
Yes.  He is inviting all to offer their passionate or dispassioate criteria on the document. He says from my point of view the priveleges of the empire were not even touched by the G20.  Nobody challenged this outgoing moribund warmogering President. 


767
News Items / Re: Britain 'may need to send troops to Congo'
« on: November 18, 2008, 09:53:35 PM »
British minister in DRC amid fresh fighting reports
KINSHASA, Nov. 18 (Xinhua) -- British Minister of State for Africa, Lord Mark Malloch Brown, was in the clash-torn Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on a three-day peace mission, amid reports of fresh fighting between the government and Tutsi rebels.

Brown told reporters on Monday that a durable solution to the crisis lies in the reinforcement of the role of the MONUC, the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC.

Brown, who arrived earlier in the day, made the remarks after talks with DRC Prime Minister Adolphe Muzito.

The British minister stressed that the position is shared by the international community and the UN Security Council will adopt a resolution this week to that end.

Meanwhile, UN officials reported the resumption of clash between the government forces and the rebel National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP). One of the peacekeepers was wounded in the crossfire on Sunday when the CNDP claimed to gain ground near Rwindi in the eastern province of North Kivu.

The CNDP accused the government of launching attacks first nearly in the wake of the good-offices mission by UN special envoy for DRC Olusegun Obasanjo.

Before his departure from North Kivu, the former Nigerian president said that he had met with CNDP leader Laurent Nkunda inJomba and Nkunda pledged to respect the ceasefire he had unilaterally called on Oct. 29, if not attacked. The rebel leader also agreed to maintain humanitarian corridors for aid to refugees.

UN officials have confirmed that the UN Security Council hopes to vote this week on a resolution that would boost the MONUC from the current 17,000 troops to nearly 20,000 to help avert a repeat of the 1998-2003 war.

Fighting resumed in August after the government and the rebels signed a UN-brokered deal in January in Goma. The renewed conflict has displaced 250,000 people and threatened the stability of the Great Lakes region in Africa.
 
 

768
For Your Information / The occupation cannot stay
« on: November 18, 2008, 09:42:33 PM »
The occupation cannot stay
Serene Assir
November 16, 2008

As one of the intellectual foundations of the Iraqi resistance, how did the work of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) begin?

The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) was established after the occupation began, a religious association whose concerns at the beginning had no relation to politics and came to fill the gap left by the Ministry of Awqaf, or religious affairs. We were also responsible for establishing contact with religious, tribal and social figures, to raise awareness on concepts of citizenship, and to repel the appearance of signs of civil war, as through our detailed monitoring we came to know that the occupation had a clear intention to spark civil war. We were successful, through the issuing of religious decrees (fatwas), between us and all the other confessional and sectarian groups, in achieving this goal.

We also had a third responsibility, which was to raise the consciousness and culture of the people against occupation, because at the start there were many people who had the perception that the occupation came to help them, or to promise them a better life. So through our initiatives, either through mosques on Friday gatherings or through our general meetings, we showed the people that occupation does not serve the nation, and that the occupation has its own goals, and that the occupation works for destruction and not construction.

These were our goals to begin with. There was no aim to take part in political work because we depended on existing political forces, Islamic and otherwise also patriotic, to take on this role instead of us. However, after the creation of the Governing Council in July 2003 we were surprised that the occupation contained the majority of the political forces, either the majority that had come with it from abroad, or the minority that operated from within. So we realised that from one day to the next the voice for opposition to occupation disappeared, because the majority became involved in its political project, which the occupation set up and which a civilian leader was sent to establish, and that was Paul Bremer.

Here, AMSI found itself forced to conduct political work to rekindle the concepts of the opposition, and to raise awareness among the people against the occupation. Our first statement related to the Governing Council and it was a sign that AMSI had added to its responsibilities a new responsibility, that of political and media opposition, and consciousness-raising of the people against occupation. We have currently arrived at issuing statement number 580, and all our statements are political statements.

How has the Iraqi resistance developed?

What is known from a reading of history is that resistance undergoes three phases. The first phase is a phase of reaction. This was perhaps the most difficult phase because the occupation tried to cover up the existence of any kind of resistance, to the extent that it would persecute journalists who would indicate the existence of such a resistance. In this phase, we were the main proclaimer of the resistance, who said that there was a resistance, and provided proof of it.

There is a second phase to resistance, and that is the process of different activities becoming clear under titles and slogans, core or otherwise. This is the phase that the resistance is currently living. There are numerous names, including the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Al-Rashidin Army, the Army of Mujahideen, and it is of course a better phase than the previous one -- more advanced. Once these titles emerged the occupation forces went crazy, because it was no longer possible to cover up the resistance from the media, and so it sought refuge in another idea, and that was to say that those groups were not resisting on behalf of the Iraqi people, but rather that they were groups coming in from the outside, described as terrorist.

This gave rise to another difficult responsibility for AMSI, which was to say through the media to the world that no, this was not true, that there is a resistance, considered legitimate by the religions of the book and the agreements of the United Nations, and on the other hand there is terrorism. We reject terrorism that targets civilians, however we are with the resistance, and what our people are doing is resistance, not terrorism.

We also entered into confrontation with the occupation forces because of these ideas, and we were targeted and from AMSI alone approximately 200 martyrs have left us, and we have 180 prisoners in the prisons of the occupation and the government, from our membership base alone. The reason for this is that we gave support to the resistance, and our work derailed attempts to conceal reality. Currently the resistance is in this phase, the second phase. And we are still working within this framework and are signalling its goals, and wherever we go in the Arab world and even Europe our role is to make known that there is a resistance and that it has its noble goals, and that it is not terrorist and that it wants to free the nation, and it wants to build a state in accordance to the criteria followed everywhere in the world -- for there to be an electoral process to elect the authorities, and that is our right.

There is a third phase, in the history of resistance movements, which the Iraqi resistance has not yet reached. We are working in order to raise ourselves to this phase, and it is the phase in which there is the emergence of a unified leadership that gathers together the different strands of the resistance, and which has some territorial control, and that forces the occupying enemy to the negotiating table. Honestly, this phase is very difficult to reach. Normally, in resistance movements in history, what has happened in the second phase is that resistance begins to receive international support. Look, for example, at the Vietnamese resistance, or the Algerian resistance. Once there are titles and names for the resistance movement, different states or peoples begin to sympathise. However, the resistance in our case is different. It does not yet have international support, not even from the region, and the reason is that for the first time in the history of humanity -- and this surprises many -- there is a resistance against a single pole in the world.

Throughout history, all resistance movements that have emerged, whether in our Arab world or in Europe or otherwise, did so in the context of more than one pole of power. So when a resistance movement emerged against a pole, support was forthcoming from other poles. Look, for example, at the Vietnamese resistance. There was Russia, and it was a great power, and there was China, and there were non-aligned states, and there were approximately 47 socialist states, which supported the Vietnamese resistance. The situation of the Iraqi resistance is unique in that it resists in a world for the first time ruled by one pole. And it is unfortunate that the one pole should be this one. This made the resistance suffer a lot. Because this pole dominates international politics, and international organisations and international media, it manages to check any side that is trying to support the resistance, whether economically or morally or in the media or politically.

We were, without exaggerating, the ones who most supported the resistance against the occupier, even though we were by this act exposing our chests to the flames of the occupation.

The resistance is currently in the second phase, and we are struggling and working for the resistance to move to the third phase, in order to force our enemy to negotiations and to withdraw from our land, and for the country to return to its people.

Because of the uniqueness of the Iraqi resistance, which you describe, many feel the resistance is struggling on behalf of us all -- even outside the Arab world. Would you agree?

I assure you, as I always assure the media, that the Iraqi resistance is not only an Iraqi resistance. It resists on behalf of the Arab world, the Islamic world and the humane world. America has brought oppression to everyone. Its reach has extended all over the world, north, south, east and west. This is a reality that everyone knows. The Iraqi resistance takes on the role of defending the rights of everyone.

I remember a story. I have a friend in London who works in translation and he has employees from China. One employee would ask me each morning how many Americans were killed on Iraqi soil and I would reply. Then I could see that as the number of Americans would rise, he would be happy. So I asked him, given his sympathy with the Iraqi people, perhaps he was a Muslim? When I asked him, he said no. So I asked him, why are you happy every time the number of Americans killed rises? He said because you in Iraq are a barricade. If this barricade collapses the hand of the Americans will reach China. It's possible that the Russian man would say the same, or even a European might say this, as the Europeans may well recognise that America has overstepped all boundaries and has stepped over the rights and will of all people.

AMSI issued a fatwa branding as treason the so-called Status of Forces Agreement the US is trying to conclude with its local puppet allies. Aside from being illegal, will this agreement have any effect on the ground?

As can be seen by anyone who follows Iraq's news, the Iraqi people reject the agreement. It was rejected publicly by the Iraqi resistance, and by associations that support the resistance, and by associations that represent important sections of society, and also by the political forces. What is interesting is that even some of the political forces that are inside the American political game have also declared their rejection. Naturally this may be for reasons that may not be patriotic. There are influences by neighbouring states as is known, and there are many forces tied to Iran, and Iran doesn't want this agreement because it considers the American presence in the long run as dangerous to it.

So what happened was a near consensus in rejection of the agreement. However, unfortunately the agreement lost its negotiability, and it is being forced and if it is not signed then the Iraqi people will pay an enormous price. But agreements are built on an exchange of free will, and built on sovereignty. As a result I believe that this agreement has no meaning, even if it is signed. Why? Because if America manages to stay in Iraq it would execute the contents of the agreement without an agreement: it would hold power. And if America leaves, then the first step the incoming patriotic power would do will be to throw this agreement in the rubbish bin. Further, I think the world is following and knows it is a forced agreement without any worth.

The US occupation in Iraq is defeated, unable to achieve its goals. Its local forces -- in particular the puppet regime of Maliki -- have no credibility. Aside from terror and violence, how does it hang on?

I assure you that the US occupation cannot stay. We say often to the media that the occupation will fall soon. Some journalists are surprised, and answer with the question: You speak with full confidence, how do you know that? We say that we have detailed information and know the reality of what the Americans are faced with.

I recall something one of the scholars said in an interview with Al-Jazeera, in which he said America today resembles the Prophet Suleiman, who continued to stand even after he was dead. Then, as the Quran says, an ant came and ate the stick upon which he leant and he fell dead. And if those people who worked under the prophet knew he was long dead, they would not have continued to do so. And the scholar continued to say that America is beginning to die. And yet before the Arabs and others it continues to seem as though it is a strong power, whereas in reality it is not that way. It is starting to eat itself up.

This beautiful and accurate metaphor is representative, in my view, of the situation in Iraq. America is defeated. America has no confidence. It is comparable to a person hanging down from a tall building, who knows what will happen if he lets go of the thin rope that is the only thing keeping him alive. He is forced to hold on. America knows that if the truth is exposed then it will be finished as a great power before the world.

For this reason it bears daily killing, so as to not admit it is defeated. America does not want to repeat the experience of Vietnam. But be sure, that moment is coming. And because of this I believe that the incoming president, whether Republican or Democrat, has no choice but withdrawal, because he will be surprised by the scale of the disaster which he has inherited from President Bush, and by the fact that President Bush was covering up reality.

The US occupation has destroyed Iraq's once advanced heathcare system. Cholera is now at epidemic proportions. Iraq's once advanced education system has also been destroyed, threatening Iraq's future by attacking the capacities of its future generations. Do you think this was all purposeful?

Yes. I gave a statement to Al-Arabiya channel in September 2003. I said then: We used to say that America has come to stay, whereas now we say that America has come to leave but only after it has destroyed everything. We used to be surprised that there is a programmed policy for destruction, and it is not random, nor is it a response to popular reactions or to actions by the resistance. No, they want an excuse to destroy the hospital, they want an excuse to burn the clinic; they want an excuse to burn the fields. Be sure, when the Americans came they came with a mind for destruction, destruction, and more destruction.

The outgoing US administration and Republicans generally argue that success in Iraq is at hand. How can the US project for Iraq be deemed a success when nearly a quarter of the Iraqi population is displaced inside and outside the country and over a million Iraqis have been killed since 2003?

What makes this war stand out is that it has come about from beginning to end built on lies. To begin with, lies were told to say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda, but although these lies have been exposed, the lies continue. At a time when we witness hundreds of deaths and the destruction of hospitals, they are saying they brought freedom. We, the Iraqis, don't know whether to laugh or cry because of all this madness. They always announce that they are victorious.

If you remember two or three years ago President Bush declared victory was near, and just how he thought so I don't know. They think that they have succeeded, or that is the lie that they made up. I think that what they mean by victory is an increase in the destruction of Iraq, and an increase in killing. The language of US victory is the language of the destruction of Iraq and the elimination of its existence.

According to Pentagon statistics, published on an American war veteran website, since 1991 to 2007 approximately, the number of Americans killed in Iraq was near 37,000. Whereas we know that in the Kuwait War very few Americans were killed, and so in order to lighten the shock for the American people the span of the study was made so long. The published figure of injured Americans is higher than 600,000. I guarantee to you that the number in reality is even higher than that. These are the American numbers. The week after this study was published on the war veterans' site, President Bush ordered for it to be removed because it was scandalous to him. So he is covering up American losses and their real scale.

Do you believe Barack Obama when he speaks of withdrawing US forces in 16 months?

I believe the decision of withdrawal that Obama speaks of is an electoral card. And secondly, whether he is telling the truth or not, should he come to power he would be forced to withdraw. This is because he would not permit himself to inherit the mistakes of others and to pay the price for them, especially given that he is a Democrat. I don't think -- if he has any capacity for thought at all -- he would stay in Iraq.

In the media, even independent sources, the number of attacks against US forces, and US casualties, appears significantly lowered from last year's. Is this accurate, and if so why?

This is true. The number of operations by the resistance has decreased to approximately 50 per cent, yes. There are reasons for this and the main cause is the Awakening (Sahwa) projects. The Americans played a game, led by Petraeus, and succeeded in it. We had areas such as Al-Anbar, very hot areas, and approximately 50 per cent of the operations against the occupation used to take place from Al-Anbar province. Here, in Al-Anbar, the Sahwa projects were created. So that 50 per cent disappeared. Al-Sahwa succeeded for a moment, though they are now finished, as I will describe shortly.

They succeeded temporarily because America put pressure on Al-Anbar for one and a half years; there were no markets for the people, no hospitals, curfews, and people were even brought to hunger and slow death. Suddenly, the US made new leaders from people from the city and said they were going to save the city, and they lifted the pressure from the city, so as to create the impression that the pressure was lifted at the hands of those individuals. They were trusted, to begin with. This is the reason for the success of the project.

The second reason for this success was that there were mistakes made by extremist groups in Al-Anbar, including the killing of people. They would kill a man just because he had been seen entering a US military camp. Or they would kill just because a man had shown support for the police -- even if he didn't work for the police as such. Or they would kill men who had worked for the police and resigned and apologised. These were big mistakes. In addition to these mistakes, the Americans, according to our accurate information, had private, secret death squads, making explosions and putting the blame on these organisations, or killing children or poisoning water, and likewise putting the blame on these groups.

So an atmosphere was created whereby people had had enough, and when these so-called sheikhs of Al-Sahwa came about, the US stopped putting such pressure on Al-Anbar and ordered the squads to stop placing explosives. We also have documented evidence of American soldiers themselves laying down explosives and then by fate to return via the same path later and die from explosions caused by the same devices they had laid. Meanwhile, the people began to sympathise with Al-Sahwa and so the resistance lost in that area the environment that embraced it -- and you know that among the most important factors in the success of a resistance movement is the environment in which it exists. So when it lost in that area the environment the number of operations went down.

Now, however, the Sahwa project is finished. The Americans themselves have abandoned it. And, in addition, the men of Al-Sahwa have themselves committed grave errors, to the extent that they have lost the trust of the people. Now, the resistance has started to regain trust. I assure you that within the coming six months, based on our experienced estimates, the rate of resistance operations will return to the level it was at before the Sahwa project.

How will peace be achieved in Iraq?

There will be no peace so long as there is occupation. The occupation does not work with understanding or negotiation. An occupier does not enter friendship, but rather with the bullet and cannon: this is a universal truth. Every time we tried to solve a problem that came about in Iraq because of the occupation, and succeeded in doing so, the occupation would give birth to another problem. We will not get rid of this vicious cycle, because it is not in the occupation's interest to end it. For example, there were attempts to spark a civil war, and we were able, with the help of God, to solve this, and then the occupation brought in the Sahwa project, and so on.

So the first step for peace is for the occupation to leave.

If the occupier leaves, I won't exaggerate and say there will be peace from one day to the next, no. There will still be problems. But we will be able to contain our problems. We, the Iraqis, will be able to work towards solving them one by one, together, without another power creating problems for us.

We as AMSI have proposed our programme from the beginning: there needs to be the exit of the occupation from Iraq with international guarantees; focus must be put on the political process and the constitution must be cancelled; and there must be the restoration of the real Iraqi army. That is the path towards peace. The first step is the exit of the occupier.

This interview was conducted 31 October 2008.
 

769
For Your Information / Pakistan The Next US Target
« on: November 18, 2008, 09:18:32 PM »
Pakistan The Next US Target       
Written by www.daily.pk     
Monday, 17 November 2008 01:51
 
Bill Kristol, a Fox Television commentator and arch American neoconservative revealed recently what many had long suspected was US thinking about the current international situation.

Kristol recounts that in a 90-minute, mostly off-the-record meeting with a small group of journalists in early July, President Bush “conveyed the following impression, that he thought the next president's biggest challenge would not be Iraq, which he thinks he'll leave in pretty good shape, and would not be Afghanistan, which is manageable by itself… It’s Pakistan.” We have “a sort of friendly government that sort of cooperates and sort of doesn’t. It's really a complicated and difficult situation.” Right on cue, presidential candidate Barack Obama took the baton from Bush in his speech on July 15, in which he argued that more focus and resource were required on both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Kristol revelation on the surface is staggering yet not a surprise to those who have long suspected that the US presence in Afghanistan constitutes a Trojan horse for a more insidious plan the US has for Pakistan. Some may find it surprising that the US now believes Pakistan to be more challenging than Iraq where the US has 150,000 troops, spent almost a trillion dollars and has incurred over 4,000 fatalities. The neocon vision was that the capture of Iraq, a state that lies at the heart of the Middle East, would allow it to control not just the resources of the region but more importantly its geopolitics. Of course, the post invasion challenge was severely underestimated and despite some reduction in violence (albeit from a high benchmark), Iraq remains a quagmire. The US would like Iraq to be ‘stable’ but not too stable, ‘independent’ but not too independent, have an ‘effective’ military but not too effective. John McCain compares the US role in Iraq with that of Korea and Germany and believes the US could be there for a hundred years. To justify a continued presence the US needs to keep Iraq weak and divided. No one can seriously dispute the growth in sectarianism that has been seen since US occupation. With a self governed Kurdish north, a Shia dominated central government and now US support for the Sunni tribes, General Petraeus has presided over a de facto partitioned state.
 
So, with Iraq closer to de facto partition, America can now turn its attention to Pakistan. This change of focus has been sign posted now for at least twelve months. In June 2007 the US published its National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) with some startling new revelations. Despite citing its numerous successes against Al-Qa’idah since September 2001 including these statements in a declassified document titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” dated April 2006 stated the following “United States - led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of Al-Qa’idah and disrupted its operations… We assess the global jihadist movement is decentralised, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.”

Yet the collective US intelligence community made a volte-face fourteen months later when it said the following: “We assess the group (Al-Qa’idah) has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.”
 
So, in effect what the US intelligence community was saying was that its six year war against Al-Qa’idah had been a failure and that to win the war effectively required action within Pakistan. The pretext for war within Pakistan was therefore created; any attack on any US target from now on that was traced to the FATA would give the US casus belli to undergo a massive retaliatory attack within Pakistan. Indeed Frances Townsend Homeland Security adviser to Bush said shortly after the NIE was published that the United States would be willing to send troops into Pakistan to root out Al-Qa’idah, noting specifically that “no option is off the table if that is what is required”
 
The US has been itching to get into Pakistan for some time.

Firstly, using remote controlled Predator aircraft to attack targets within Pakistan almost on a daily basis.

Secondly, the US has spent $10 billion on Pakistan’s military since 2001 and more specifically in trying to make Pakistan’s Frontier Corps into a fighting unit for the US military. To ensure Washington gets better value for money, Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, is seeking to enact legislation in Congress to tie future security aid to performance.

Thirdly, by promoting General Petraeus from heading up the Iraq campaign to become Central Command (CENTCOM’s) new head clearly indicates that Iraq has become subservient to Pakistan in Washington’s thinking.

Fourthly, the continued barrage of criticism within Capitol Hill, by Afghan officials and western think tanks of Pakistan’s failure to stem cross border insurgency prepares the ground for an eventual attack in Pakistan. Indeed eliminating the Pakistan sanctuary bases is one of the RAND Corporation’s key recommendations in a recent report, funded by the IS DOD, entitled “Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.” The report does not confine criticism to the FATA but states that the insurgency also finds refuge in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) as well as the province of Balochistan so extending the area substantially for future retaliation. 

Lastly, according to a New York Times report in June, top Bush administration officials drafted a secret plan in 2007 to make it easier for US Special Operations forces to operate inside Pakistan’s tribal areas but that turf battles and the diversion of resources to Iraq held up the effort. However, now that forces are being reduced in Iraq, it is inevitable that such programs will be stepped up.

So, why is Pakistan so important?

Mitchell Shivers Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Asian & Pacific Security Affairs gave the following reasons in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 25 June 2008:

Firstly, Pakistan is the second most populous Muslim state, the sixth most populous country in the world, and is located at the geopolitical crossroads of South and Central Asia.

Second, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons and has already fought three conventional wars with another nuclear nation next door, India.

Third Pakistan has a large, growing moderate middle class striving for democracy.

Fourth, elements of extremism and terrorism are at work within Pakistan sponsored by the usa and India.

Fifth, the whole-hearted assistance of the Pakistani people and their government will help the United States achieve its national security objectives in Afghanistan.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in an article in the Washington Post in March defined US objectives in Pakistan as “control of nuclear weapons, counter-terrorism cooperation and resistance to Islamic radicalism” and believes Pakistan could turn “into the wildcard of international diplomacy.” This was echoed by Turkey’s military chief General Yaşar Büyükanıt who speaking in March at an international conference in Ankara warned that Pakistan’s political troubles could open the way for the Taliban to seize the country and its nuclear weapons.
 
The US fears Pakistan, as it contains the key mix of Islam, nuclear weapons and people who are impatient for change and who do not trust the Americans. Consistent surveys indicates that the US’s approval ratings are less than 20% in Pakistan and that the people of Pakistan desire for Islamic rule does not equate to a desire for violent extremism. The desire for Islamic governance allied with the above ingredients clearly illustrate why Pakistan has risen to the top of Washington’s radar screen and why Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has now made four visits to Pakistan since February.
 
What about the war in Afghanistan, how does this fit into the plan for Pakistan?

Of course, Afghanistan has some value to the US but the campaign as Kristol admits will be allowed to continue on the back burner. The US objective for Afghanistan was never to defeat the Taliban or to extend its remit over the whole country. Indeed if it was the objective, the US would have sent more troops. The Soviet Union in comparison had 300,000 troops in the 1980’s and while occupying the cities, could never pacify the countryside. The US and NATO presence at about 65,000 is almost laughable when facing a population of 31 million. The US campaign in Afghanistan is more a forward base combining Special Forces and CIA operatives backed up with airpower and a modest number of US ground forces. The mission in 2001 was to coordinate the fight with allies within the Northern Alliance and amongst other minorities and disgruntled anti-Taliban elements. Geo-strategically, Afghanistan has limited value for the US, other than to ensure no one else should control it. This explains why the priority given to Afghanistan will always be less than Iraq and certainly lower than Pakistan. It also explains why Afghanistan is in the shambles it is.
 
According to the Afghanistan Human Development Report 2007, Afghanistan remains far behind neighbouring countries with a rank of 174 out of 178 on the global HDI (a composite indicator that measures education, longevity, and economic performance). 6.6 million Afghans do not meet their minimum food requirements. 2006 witnessed a significant rise in attacks and a 59% spike in the area under poppy cultivation, making the country a world leader in the production of illegal opium (90% of global production). Low literacy and a lack of access to safe drinking water, food, and sanitation contribute to the still relatively high child mortality rate. With the maternal mortality ratio estimated at 1600 deaths per 100,000 live births, Afghanistan maintains one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.
 
How should Muslims in the region respond? They need to do at least three things:
 
A. Pakistan should realise what the US is trying to do. It doesn’t require an international relations genius to conclude that the US is seeking to do to Pakistan what it has done to Iraq, namely decimating its military capability and fracturing the country into separate entities. The army who effectively control Pakistan are not stupid; they understand the political dynamic at place. Four Star General Tariq Majeed, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee recently said at an international conference in Singapore that cross-border missile strikes into Pakistan's tribal belt are killing civilians and contributing to the popular perception that U.S. military operations in the region are “anti-Islam.” They understand that when the US talks about reforming the Frontier Corps, this is about ensuring that they fight more effectively for the US, not Pakistan. They also understand that while the US has a tactical relationship with Pakistan, it seeks a strategic relationship with India even to the extent of offering it unprecedented civil nuclear assistance. The $10 billion that the US has given Pakistan since 2001 means nothing, if Pakistan eventually fragments into multiple pieces. With NWFP, Balochistan and Karachi all teetering at the edge, the US has a once in a generation opportunity to turn Pakistan into a balkanised hell hole.

B. The only supply lines into Afghanistan for the US are either through the mountains of Central Asia or through the port of Karachi. Without Pakistan, logistics, the flow of supplies, fuel and other military hardware would soon stop the campaign in Afghanistan. There is no strategic interest for Pakistan to continue to support America’s war in Afghanistan.

Firstly, it allows 65,000 NATO and US troops to permanently occupy a Muslim country creating an anti Pakistani government in Kabul.

Secondly instead of having a secure western border, Pakistan has to have 100,000 troops permanently supporting the US effort thus taking valuable resources from it’s more vulnerable eastern border with India.
Thirdly, Pakistan has to face the blowback, of fighting not just its own citizens in NWFP and FATA, but fellow Muslims across the border.

Lastly, the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan have to realise that neither brutal dictatorship nor secular democracy can succeed in the Muslim world. As has been witnessed since February, Pakistan’s political class have no solutions with respect to high fuel costs, high food prices and the deterioration in the financial environment. The Afghan President has also presided over a country where after nearly 7 years, hunger, corruption, electricity shortages and killing civilians are the watchwords of today’s Afghanistan.

Only the tried and trusted Islamic system of the Khilafah (Caliphate) can succeed in the Muslim world. A coherent effort at re-establishing the Khilafah is now the urgent requirement and is gaining momentum. According to an opinion poll carried out by the University of Maryland, 74% of Pakistanis support the establishment of a unified Khilafah in the Muslim world, the establishment of such an entity is therefore not a question of if, but when.
 
Indeed the major problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not one of economic resources but of political will. Afghanistan and Pakistan are not ‘failing states.’  Unfortunately, for the people of Afghanistan they’ve been invaded twice by external powers in the last 25 years and this remains the hub of their problem. For the Pakistani people they have seen over 60 years of political failure with so called “independence” a mere charade.
 
Yet the world is entering a new paradigm in international relations. No longer will the Fed in Washington be calling the shots. No longer will the Dollar reign supreme. No longer is the US military invincible. What started with self evident truths in Philadelphia over two centuries ago has now morphed into implosion on Wall Street and an economic tsunami across the globe.
 
Many cite the Khilafah as a utopian dream, yet those in the know are not so sure. A US government intelligence study by the National Intelligence Council in 2004 called “Mapping the Global Future” presented as one future scenario the rise of a new pan-national Caliphate. Thomas Ricks the Washington Post’s senior Pentagon correspondent in his book “Fiasco” says there is precedent for the emergence of a unifying figure in the Muslim world a modern day Saladin someone who can revive the region through combining popular support with huge oil revenues. A real “nightmare scenario” for the western world as Richard Nixon once described it in his book 1999.
 
So Muslims face a strategic choice either support the US led coalition or politically unify under the banner of Islam. Whereas the former guarantees national oblivion and further balkanisation, the latter should allow the Muslim world to flourish and meet head on the challenges of the 21st century.
 

770
The G-20 Economic Summit Won’t Change the "Financial Crime Scene"

By Richard C. Cook

Global Research, November 16, 2008 Remarks by Richard C. Cook

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

November 15, 2008

The G20 is meeting today in Washington , D.C. , to discuss the world financial crisis, its causes, and what can be done about it. But this won’t help the people of the U.S. who have been victimized by their own financial system.

The stated objectives are to find ways to stabilize and reduce speculation in the financial markets and make financial transactions more transparent, more efficient, and more international in scope. But this is also a revolt by the nations of the world against over-reliance on the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. What we are likely to see over time is a multi-currency regime that includes the Euro and one or more Asian currencies as well.

But the conference will not address the real causes of why the world is heading into a global recession or why the U.S. economy in particular is in such dire straits. Nor will the meeting lresult in redress of the staggering level of bankers’ criminality abetted by the U.S. government in the creation of the financial bubbles whose collapse is underway.

The real problem is that the world is locked into a debt-based financial system run by the world’s banks, where the only way currency can be entered into circulation is through lending. It’s been massive amounts of completely irresponsible lending which have leveraged the bubbles against much smaller amounts of tangible value.

The GDP of the entire world is $55 trillion. This is dwarfed by speculative lending in the derivatives markets of ten times that amount--$525-$550 trillion. No nation has clean hands in this travesty. The governments of the world and the central banks have allowed it to come into being.

Within the U.S. , reliance on money-creation through bank lending has been the problem since the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. At that point the U.S. monetary system was privatized. The case has been the same with all the other nations which have private banking systems that control their central banks. The granddaddy is the Bank of England which dates from 1694.

The creation of the Federal Reserve System marked the start of a century of world war. This is hardly a coincidence. Indeed, the central banking system encourages wars and lives off them, because it is war and the threat of war that is most profitable to a system where the more money governments borrow the more profits the banks make.

All this started with World War I, which was largely financed by the British, French, German, and the U.S. banks. Events have continued in that vein through today, where the nations of the world are armed to the teeth and global finance capitalism tries to increase its control everywhere to the detriment of workers, national economies, and the environment.

To try to fix the crisis through bailing out the system, we are now seeing in the U.S. and Europe levels of government borrowing that have not been experienced since World War II. The purpose is to recapitalize a financial system that has destroyed itself through its own greed and folly. But all this does is defer the bill to future generations who have to pay the enormous compounded interest charges this borrowing entails. Interest on the national debt in the 2009 federal budget is over $500 billion. Every man, woman, and child in the nation is a victim of this crime.

The situation is so bad that many people believe the U.S. may even be in danger of defaulting on its gigantic national debt sometime in 2009.

Meanwhile, the failed financial system is dragging down the world’s producing economy with it, and the bailouts won’t change that situation. Combined with the financial crash has been a collapse in consumer “demand.” In other words, consumers, who are maxed out on their credit, no longer can borrow enough to keep the wheels of the economy turning.

But the reason they must borrow for consumption is that earnings are not sufficient for people to buy what they need to live. This is why in the U.S. there has been an outcry, including with the Obama campaign, for new government job-creation programs. Every day there is another proposal by progressives for new government spending, which, of course, will have to be financed by even more government debt.

So when are we going to learn how to introduce purchasing power without debt? How did we ever come to believe that the only way to create money is through a bank inventing it out of thin air? In the past few weeks we have had a number of Nobel-prize winning economists chip in with their suggestions of what to do, but none have addressed the obvious question of what the alternatives may be to bankers’ debt-based currency.

If we look at history, we see other ways governments have used their powers to create money. Indeed, until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the U.S. was a kind of laboratory of alternative methods of money-creation.

If we go back to colonial days, the American colonies used a variety of means to introduce currency into circulation. In Virginia , plantation owners received tobacco certificates when they deposited their product at public warehouses. The certificates then circulated as currency.

In Pennsylvania the government ran a land bank which paid cash to land-owners for liens on property. The interest paid for the costs of government without any taxation of citizens.

In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, governments spent paper money directly into circulation. The money received value by then being accepted by those governments, after it circulated within the economy, in payment of taxes.

Other forms of currency were Spanish dollars, Indian wampum, and IOUs. There was also a flourishing barter trade.

The system worked. By 1764, the American colonies formed one of the most prosperous trading regions on the planet. When asked why, Benjamin Franklin said it was because of colonial scrip–i.e., their paper money. When the British Parliament outlawed it through the Currency Act of 1764, an economic depression followed. It was the underlying cause of the Revolutionary War.

During that war, the Continental Congress issued the famous Continental Currency. What likely caused that money to inflate was extensive British counterfeiting, not being used to excess by our national government.

Once the nation became independent, a U.S. mint was founded so individuals could bring in gold or silver and have it stamped into coinage free of charge. New discoveries as with the California and Yukon gold rushes or better methods of extraction from ores resulted in economic booms. From then until coinage lost its value after the Federal Reserve System was established, precious metals were a major part of the U.S. monetary system that included not only coinage but also gold and silver certificates.

In 1791 and again in 1816 Congress passed legislation for the First and Second Banks of the United States . These banks were dupicates of the Bank of England whose purposes were to fasten on the U.S. the same type of debt-based monetary system that was the driving force for the British Empire . Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Martin van Buren were among those who saw these banks as a Trojan Horse for financier tyranny. The split between pro- and anti-bank forces was the origin of the two-party system within the United States .

When Jefferson became president in 1800 he refused to borrow from the bank and balanced the federal budget for eight consecutive years by cutting military expenditures. Andrew Jackson took similar action in 1833 when he withdrew federal funds from the bank and paid off the entire national debt. It was recognized back then that fiscal responsibility was an effective means for keeping the government out of the control of the bankers and their political friends.

When the Civil War broke out in 1861, President Abraham Lincoln refused to borrow from the banks. Instead he financed the war through income and excise taxes, sale of war bonds directly to citizens, and issuance of the famous Greenbacks. This came about in 1862 when Congress authorized the government to spend $450 million in paper Greenbacks directly into circulation. Congress also introduced tangible value into the economy by what was then the very wise policy of transferring huge amounts of public land to the railroads and to citizens under the Homestead Act.

During the late 19th century, ordinary citizens were not so stunningly ignorant of the politics of money as they are today. People recognized the Greenbacks for having saved the union. A Greenback Party was formed that elected representatives to Congress and ran candidates for president.

Greenbacks remained in circulation, and as late as 1900 still made up a third of the nation’s monetary supply, along with coinage, gold and silver certificates, and national bank notes. Also, many other business entities, including the “company stores” owned by mining companies, issued their own paper scrip that was part of the circulating currency. For example, in a pamphlet on monetary reform written by American poet Ezra Pound in the 1930s was an illustration of paper money his grandfather issued from his lumberyard in Michigan in the late 1800s backed by board-feet of lumber payable on demand! Of course barter trade continued and still exists today among industrial firms.

But the bankers were on the move. In 1863 and 1864 Congress passed the National Banking Acts which drove the extensive system of state-chartered banks, including some owned by state governments, out of existence. By the early 1900s, the power of the bankers had coalesced under the New York banking trust led by the J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller financial interests.

The bakers struck in 1913 just before the Christmas recess when many Congressmen had already left Washington for the holidays. The Federal Reserve Act had actually been written by bankers from Europe who were allied with the Rothschild interests. Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., father of the aviator, called the Act “the legislative crime of the ages.” Later President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Act, said he had “unwittingly ruined my nation.”

But the deed was done. The Federal Reserve System created the first major financial bubble through World War I spending, followed by a depression, then created and burst the stock market bubble whose collapse started the Great Depression in 1929. President Franklin D. Roosevelt took over credit creation through low-cost government lending in the 1930s but had to use World War II to achieve full employment because by then the government was totally locked into the Keynesian tax-and-borrow credo of public finance.

The bankers began their comeback in the 1950s and consolidated their power in the 1970s under the heading of “monetarism,” which is the philosophy of trying to control the economy through raising and lowering of interest rates. This travesty–which is really institutionalized usury–is as familiar to us today as the water a fish swims in. We don’t even notice it. Yet it’s this system that has ruined the world. Ever since the 1970s, every period of economic growth in the U.S. has been a bank-created bubble followed by a crash and a recession.

We had the inflation of the 1970s created by the government-induced oil prices shocks, followed by the Paul Volcker crash of 1979-83 when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates above twenty percent and caused the biggest downturn since the Great Depression.

During the later Reagan years we had the merger-acquisition bubble followed by the recession that brought Bill Clinton to office in 1992. Then we had the dot.com bubble of the mid- to late-1990s that ended with the crash of 2000-2001.

Next, instead, of rebuilding an economy that had been devastated by export of our best manufacturing jobs to China and other cheap-labor countries, the Federal Reserve under chairman Alan Greenspan, with assistance from the George W. Bush administration, created the biggest bubble economy in history, with the housing, commercial real estate, equity, hedge fund, derivatives, and commodities bubbles all blowing up at the same time and leaving us with the mess we are in today.

What has happened during the Bush administration has been the greatest crime against the public interest in U.S. history. Its effects are only starting to be evident.

Of course in the face of so many disasters, the credit markets have imploded, and governments don’t know what to do except recapitalize and restructure them but without taking action to address the deep systemic problems with the producing economy. And while the Europeans may have blown the whistle on U.S. excesses through the G20 meeting, this country still faces disaster.

Yes, Wall Street is killing Main Street , and no one has come up with an answer except suggestions for the bailouts and some New Deal-type programs in an environment that is much worse even than in the 1930s. For one thing, most of what we consume today is produced abroad. For another, family farming has been ruined. In a pinch, our nation could no longer even feed itself.

But the amazing thing is how easy it would be to salvage the situation if the government took the simple step of treating credit as what it really is–a public utility like clean air, water, or electricity, not the private property of the banking system. In fact the banking system and the politicians they own have stolen and abused this fundamental piece of the social commons.

Banks have no legal right to work against the public interest. Every single bank that has ever existed has operated under a public charter. The Constitution gives Congress–i.e., the people’s representative government–authority to regulate interstate commerce. It also gives Congress the right and responsibility to control the monetary system.

So why doesn’t Congress do it? Why does Congress sit passively and stare when Federal Reserve chairmen such as Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke sit before them and mumble nonsense about markets and interest rates and inflation and the rest of a made-up system whose main result is to funnel the wealth of the economy upwards into the hands of the financial elite?

In my writings I have advocated several measures Congress could take immediately to remedy the catastrophe we are facing:

1. Congress could authorize direct expenditure of government funds for legitimate public expenses, as was done with the Civil War-era Greenbacks. Contrary to bankers’ propaganda, the Greenbacks were not inflationary then and would not be inflationary now, because they would be backed by tangible economic production of goods and services. What has been inflationary has been the debt-based currency which, since it was introduced in 1913, has caused the dollar to lose 95 percent of its value. Greenback-type spending is contained in the proposed American Monetary Act, developed by the American Monetary Institute. 2. Congress could authorize a national infrastructure bank that would be self-capitalized and would lend money into existence to state and local governments at zero percent interest. Legislation for such a bank has been introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich. 3. Congress could authorize dividend payments to citizens as advocated by the Social Credit movement founded by Major C.H. Douglas of Great Britain decades ago as a means of monetizing the net appreciation of the producing economy. Dividends exceeding $1,000 a month could be issued from a national dividend account without recourse to taxation or borrowing. Such a concept is related to the Alaska Permanent Fund which paid over $3,200 to each state resident in 2008 and to the concept of a basic income guarantee advocated by proponents of the negative income tax in years past. 4. Congress could utilize dividend payments once they were spent, possibly in the form of vouchers for necessities of life like food and housing, to capitalize a new network of community savings banks that would provide low-cost credit to home purchasers, students, small business people, and local farms.

I worked in the U.S. Treasury Department for 21 years and learned first-hand the history and operations of public finance in the U.S. I have seen the disastrous results of the debt- based financial system and how it has driven our nation, government, and people into bankruptcy. I have also seen how these simple measures of monetary reform would be easy to implement and would begin to turn the situation around within weeks or months.

All it takes is political will and a determination to challenge the death-grip the financial elite has had on our economy for a century.

We can be quite certain that these vital issues will not be addressed by the summit of the G20 meeting in Washington today. If anything, these meetings are likely to render the grip of private finance on the peoples of the world even tighter than before.

But sooner or later change must come. For the immediate future people could fight back by doing everything possible to get out of debt, convert their cash reserves to tangible holdings, and start their own local currency and barter systems. But for real change, a monetary revolution is required.

Richard C. Cook is a former U.S. federal government analyst and an advocate for economic democracy and sustainability. His new book, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform, can now be ordered for $19.95 from www.tendrilpress.com.

771
Beware The Obama Hype; What "Change" In America Really Means
John Pilger

Nov 12

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21205.htm

November 12, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" - -My first visit to Texas was in 1968, on the fifth anniversary of the assassination of president John F Kennedy in Dallas. I drove south, following the line of telegraph poles to the small town of Midlothian, where I met Penn Jones Jr, editor of the Midlothian Mirror. Except for his drawl and fine boots, everything about Penn was the antithesis of the Texas stereotype. Having exposed the racists of the John Birch Society, his printing press had been repeatedly firebombed. Week after week, he painstakingly assembled evidence that all but demolished the official version of Kennedy's murder.

This was journalism as it had been before corporate journalism was invented, before the first schools of journalism were set up and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around those whose "professionalism" and "objectivity" carried an unspoken obligation to ensure that news and opinion were in tune with an establishment consensus, regardless of the truth. Journalists such as Penn Jones, independent of vested power, indefatigable and principled, often reflect ordinary American attitudes, which have seldom conformed to the stereotypes promoted by the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic. Read American Dreams: Lost and Found by the masterly Studs Terkel, who died the other day, or scan the surveys that unerringly attribute enlightened views to a majority who believe that "government should care for those who cannot care for themselves" and are prepared to pay higher taxes for universal health care, who support nuclear disarmament and want their troops out of other people's countries.

Returning to Texas, I am struck again by those so unlike the redneck stereotype, in spite of the burden of a form of brainwashing placed on most Americans from a tender age: that theirs is the most superior society in the history of the world, and all means are justified, including the spilling of copious blood, in maintaining that superiority.

That is the subtext of Barack Obama's "oratory". He says he wants to build up US military power; and he threatens to ignite a new war in Pakistan, killing yet more brown-skinned people. That will bring tears, too. Unlike those on election night, these other tears will be unseen in Chicago and London. This is not to doubt the sincerity of much of the response to Obama's election, which happened not because of the unction that has passed for news reporting from America since 4 November (e.g. "liberal Americans smiled and the world smiled with them") but for the same reasons that millions of angry emails were sent to the White House and Congress when the "bailout" of Wall Street was revealed, and because most Americans are fed up with war.

Two years ago, this anti-war vote installed a Democratic majority in Congress, only to watch the Democrats hand over more money to George W Bush to continue his blood fest. For his part, the "anti-war" Obama never said the illegal invasion of Iraq was wrong, merely that it was a "mistake". Thereafter, he voted in to give Bush what he wanted. Yes, Obama's election is historic, a symbol of great change to many. But it is equally true that the American elite has grown adept at using the black middle and management class. The courageous Martin Luther King recognised this when he linked the human rights of black Americans with the human rights of the Vietnamese, then being slaughtered by a liberal Democratic administration. And he was shot. In striking contrast, a young black major serving in Vietnam, Colin Powell, was used to "investigate" and whitewash the infamous My Lai massacre. As Bush's secretary of state, Powell was often described as a "liberal" and was considered ideal to lie to the United Nations about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Condaleezza Rice, lauded as a successful black woman, has worked assiduously to deny the Palestinians justice.

Obama's first two crucial appointments represent a denial of the wishes of his supporters on the principal issues on which they voted. The vice-president-elect, Joe Biden, is a proud warmaker and Zionist. Rahm Emanuel, who is to be the all-important White House chief of staff, is a fervent "neoliberal" devoted to the doctrine that led to the present economic collapse and impoverishment of millions. He is also an "Israel-first" Zionist who served in the Israeli army and opposes meaningful justice for the Palestinians – an injustice that is at the root of Muslim people's loathing of the United States and the spawning of jihadism.

No serious scrutiny of this is permitted within the histrionics of Obamamania, just as no serious scrutiny of the betrayal of the majority of black South Africans was permitted within the "Mandela moment". This is especially marked in Britain, where America's divine right to "lead" is important to elite British interests. The once respected Observer newspaper, which supported Bush's war in Iraq, echoing his fabricated evidence, now announces, without evidence, that "America has restored the world's faith in its ideals". These "ideals", which Obama will swear to uphold, have overseen, since 1945, the destruction of 50 governments, including democracies, and 30 popular liberation movements, causing the deaths of countless men, women and children.

None of this was uttered during the election campaign. Had it been allowed, there might even have been recognition that liberalism as a narrow, supremely arrogant, war-making ideology is destroying liberalism as a reality. Prior to Blair's criminal warmaking, ideology was denied by him and his media mystics. "Blair can be a beacon to the world," declared the Guardian in 1997. "[He is] turning leadership into an art form."

Today, merely insert "Obama". As for historic moments, there is another that has gone unreported but is well under way – liberal democracy's shift towards a corporate dictatorship, managed by people regardless of ethnicity, with the media as its clichéd façade. "True democracy," wrote Penn Jones Jr, the Texas truth-teller, "is constant vigilance: not thinking the way you're meant to think and keeping your eyes wide open at all times."

www.johnpilger.com

772
News Items / Re: Airstrike Kills 90 in Afghan Wedding Party
« on: November 11, 2008, 07:41:57 AM »
Another US massacre in Afghanistan

wsws By James Cogan 8 November 2008

An Afghan government investigation into US air strikes carried out on Monday in the province of Kandahar has found that at least 37 civilians taking part in a wedding celebration were massacred. Another 30 people or more–men, women and children–were injured. The investigation also claimed that 26 insurgents fighting for the former Islamist Taliban regime were killed.

The US attacks devastated the small village of Wocha Bakhta in the district of Shah Wali Kot, some 80 kilometres north of Kandahar city.

According to a US military statement issued on Wednesday, the air strike was called in against a band of Taliban who had occupied the village and fired on a patrol of NATO troops. It alleged that the insurgents used the civilian population as human shields and implied that any casualties could have been caused by insurgent fire.

US spokesman Colonel Greg Julian told journalists: "We acknowledge that some civilians have been injured and some may have been killed. I can't confirm numbers."

An Agence France Presse report based on interviews with villagers and filed on Wednesday presented a very different picture of events. Locals told AFP that as a lunch-time wedding celebration was drawing to a close, insurgents fired on occupation troops from a nearby hill. NATO forces wrongly concluded that the village was the source of the attack and initiated a full-scale assault.

Abdul Jalil, a cousin of the woman getting married, told AFP: "They surrounded the village. From 2 p.m. until 12 at night they kept the village under fire from helicopters, jet fighters and troops on the ground."

The village cleric, Mullah Mohammad Asim, claimed that air strikes had targeted six to seven houses, including the complex where the wedding party was taking place. "They pounded and fired into the village from afternoon until midnight," he said.

The family of the bride, who was wounded in the attack, was decimated. Her father, Roozbeen Khan, said: "I lost two sons, two grandsons, a nephew, my mother and a cousin... My wounded son was in my arms, right here, bleeding. He died last night." While the groom was not injured, his father, mother and sister were reportedly killed.

Mullah Mohammad Asim described what took place when US ground forces finally entered the village: "At midnight the Americans came and they took the men out of the houses and handcuffed them. But when they saw the death and the destruction, they removed the handcuffs and told us to take the wounded to hospital."

The slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan has become an almost daily occurrence. Without sufficient troops to control the country and desperate to avoid casualties of their own, US and NATO forces rely heavily on air power to combat the growing Taliban insurgency. Air strikes or helicopter gunship attacks are called in against any suspected insurgent concentration. In scores of cases, the alleged "Taliban" have turned out to be villagers attempting to go about their lives amid a foreign occupation and a resistance war. Wedding parties–which often involve celebratory gun fire into the air–have frequently been wrongly assessed as "insurgent activity".

Statistics released by the US military show a huge increase in airstrikes. In all, 13,802 air missions have been flown in Afghanistan and 2,983 bombs were dropped in the first nine months of this year. This breaks down to at least 50 missions and 10 bombings per day–a 31 percent increase over the 10,538 missions flown during the same time period in 2007.

The US-backed Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai is becoming increasingly frantic over the indiscriminate air strikes. The constant reports of civilian deaths have generated enormous hatred of both the American occupation and the puppet regime. They are a factor in the growing support for the Taliban resistance–especially in the country's ethnic Pashtun southern provinces where the population has suffered the most from US and NATO atrocities.

At a press conference on Wednesday to congratulate Barack Obama on his election victory, Karzai issued an appeal to the president-elect. "My first demand from the US president, when he takes office, would be to end civilian casualties in Afghanistan and take the war to places where there are terrorist nests and training centres," he said.

Any notion that an Obama administration will direct the US military to scale back its operations in Afghanistan is absurd. On the contrary, Obama has centred his foreign policy on an escalation of the Afghan war and an increase in US and NATO troop numbers in the country. During the election, he repeatedly advocated extending the conflict over the border into Pakistan's tribal agencies, which Taliban insurgents have used as a safe haven and base for their resistance to the US-led occupation.

Under the fraudulent banner of finishing the "war on terrorism", Obama intends to ensure that Afghanistan is consolidated as a US client state. His election campaign served as the vehicle for influential sections of the American establishment that consider a high priority should be given to Central Asia–a region where Russia and China are striving for geopolitical dominance.

The Bush administration is now in essence implementing the Obama strategy. Since September, the US military has carried out repeated air strikes inside Pakistan. Additional US combat brigades are being prepared for deployment to Afghanistan. As many as 30,000 extra troops may be sent over the next three to six months. The bipartisan militarist policy is one of the reasons why Bush can speak of a "seamless transition" to an Obama White House.

The figure overseeing the escalation of the Afghan war on behalf of both Bush and Obama is US general David Petraeus, the former commander of US forces in Iraq. Petraeus now heads US Central Command, which has authority over operations throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

Petraeus visited Pakistan at the beginning of this week for talks with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Both appealed to him to end the US attacks inside the country which are fueling support for Islamist militants. He responded by authorising another air strike yesterday against a housing complex in the tribal agency of North Waziristan, which killed between 10 and 13 people according to Pakistani sources.

Petraeus is now in Afghanistan, where he is compiling a "strategic review" of US operations that will be presented in the coming weeks to the Bush administration and president- elect Obama. Petraeus arrived in the country as the US military brushed off the Karzai government's complaints over the impact of air strikes. Within hours of Karzai's press conference on Wednesday, a bombing run against an alleged Taliban band in the Afghan province of Badghis reportedly killed seven civilians as well as 13 militants.

773
General Discussion / Re: International demonstration against NATO
« on: November 08, 2008, 12:27:59 AM »
NATO demonstration in Strasbourg 2-5 April 2009     
Written by Stewart office     
Wednesday, 05 November 2008 
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was set up at the height of the Cold War to oppose the USSR. Today NATO is being expanded eastwards, and is the occupying force in Afghanistan. NATO expansion was the trigger for the war in Georgia in August 2008.

There will be an international demonstration at the NATO meeting in Strasbourg on 2-5 April 2009. Anti-war groups from across the world will meet to oppose any further expasion of NATO and demand an end to the occupation of Afghanistan. Read the call to the conference here .


President Barack Obama has said that he will send more troops to Afghanistan. The British Ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, has said that sending more troops to Afghanistan would make the situation worse.



 

774
UK helping prepare strategic options in Afghanistan for Obama
"We are already working with General Petraeus, the new commander, and we have seconded individuals to his team to prepare strategic options for the new President," Malloch-Brown said.

"Although we feel the need to prevail militarily in Helmand and Afghanistan, we have always and consistently been clear that a military victory alone will not secure the stable peace that we wish for; it is necessary to have a political track as well," he said.

Speaking during a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan on Wednesday, the minister said that he disagreed that the "dynamic is running against us" following the adoption of asymmetrical warfare by Taliban insurgents.

But he agreed that "an effective, coherent international strategy" was needed, for which Britain and the US were working with allies in the UN. He also endorsed the need for regional partners, which he said "critical for success."

During the debate, former UN High Representative for Bosnia, Lord Ashdown, warned that more troops and more resources would not be sufficient in Afghanistan without the help of neighbouring countries and an international plan with clear priorities.

Former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Lord Howell suggested that "some co-operation even with Iran, which has the same objectives as we have over a wide area in Afghanistan."

Malloch-Brown said that there had been a lot of speculation about what Obama's strategy would be but cautioned members of the House of Lords that they would have to wait and see as he needed the opportunity to develop his thinking.

"We certainly believe that additional troops can be useful but we have always made it clear that that must be combined with an appropriate political approach. We hope that the American approach will emphasize both things," he said.

The minister said that there was much hope for an opportunity for NATO to re-engage and that "the new president, Mr Obama, will use some of his new-found multilateral authority and friendships to bring a broader NATO commitment back to this operation."

He also called on the government of Afghanistan to "reach out to tribal leaders and other groups who have aligned themselves with the Taliban and bring them back onside." --IRNA
 

775
News Items / Airstrike Kills 90 in Afghan Wedding Party
« on: November 06, 2008, 08:55:00 PM »
Airstrike Kills 90 in Afghan Wedding Party

Published on Wednesday, November 5, 2008 by The Toronto Star

by Bill Graveland

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - There are accusations that U.S. airstrikes struck a wedding party in southern Afghanistan Monday - killing scores of women and children and sending the bride and groom to hospital.

[Afghan children receive treatment at a local hospital in Kandahar. The governor of Kandahar province confirmed 90 people had died in the attack with another 30 injured. (AFP/Hamed Zalmy)]Afghan children receive treatment at a local hospital in Kandahar. The governor of Kandahar province confirmed 90 people had died in the attack with another 30 injured. (AFP/Hamed Zalmy) "When the fighting started the jets came and bombed," said Juma Khan, who helped bring his mother and nine other women and children to Kandahar's Mirwais Hospital.

Mohammad Nabi Khan lost two of his sons, ages 4 and 11, and his wife's brother was also listed among the dead.

"There's a lot of casualties," he said. "Most of them were women and children. Many are still buried under the rubble of homes."

"What kind of security are the foreign troops providing in Afghanistan?" he asked.

The governor of Kandahar province confirmed 90 people had died in the attack with another 30 injured.

"It was a mistake - they hit the wedding party and thought it was the Taliban," Gov. Rahmatullah Raufi told a late afternoon news conference.

The alleged airstrikes in the Shah Wali Kot district come only three months after the Afghan government found that a U.S. operation had killed some 90 civilians in western Afghanistan. A U.S. report said 33 civilians died in that attack.

A Taliban spokesman claimed that the airstrike had killed only one of its members and the rest of the victims were local villagers.

Canadian ground troops also operate in the region but a Canadian Forces spokesman could not say if they were involved.

President Hamid Karzai referred to the incident at a news conference held to congratulate Barack Obama on his U.S. presidential election victory.

Karzai said his first demand for the new president was to prevent civilian casualties in operations by foreign forces. He then said airstrikes had caused deaths in the Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province.

"As we speak, there are civilian casualties in Afghanistan," Karzai said.

U.S. Forces in Afghanistan and the Afghan Ministry of Interior issued a news release Wednesday to announce an investigation into the incident.

"The coalition and Afghan authorities are investigating reports of non-combatant casualties in the village of Wech Baghtu," said Cmdr. Jeff Bender, Deputy Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Forces Afghanistan. "Though facts are unclear at this point, we take very seriously our responsibility to protect the people of Afghanistan and to avoid circumstances where noncombatant civilians are placed at risk."

"If innocent people were killed in this operation, we apologize and express our condolences to the families and the people of Afghanistan," he said.

Military personnel have been dispatched to the area to begin the investigation. © 2008 The Canadian Press

776
Banking on Bloodshed: UK high street banks’ complicity in the arms trade
War on Want has just released a new report on the financing of uranium weapon and cluster bomb manufacturers by UK banks. It adds to the data released by ICBUW last year that found that RBS and Barclays invested in DU. You can now add HSBC and Lloyds to that list.
31 October 2008 - ICBUW
 The arms trade provides the destructive hardware used in conflicts across the world. It undermines development, contributing to the poverty and suffering of millions. A new report by War on Want, Banking on Bloodshed: UK high street banks’ complicity in the arms trade has exposed, for the first time, the extent to which the five main British high street banks are funding this violent trade.

High street banks are using our money to fund companies that sell arms used against civilians in wars across the world, including the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are financing an industry that sells arms to countries committing human rights abuses such as Israel, Colombia and Saudi Arabia. Money from our savings and current accounts is being used to fund companies that produce pernicious weapons like depleted uranium and cluster bombs.

As a result of the financial crisis there are now unprecedented calls for regulation of the banking sector. War on Want is calling on the government to ensure that all banks are made to publish the full details of their loans, holdings and other banking services to the arms trade. The government must also introduce regulation which prevents high street banks from supporting the arms trade.


777
European day of action against military infrastructure
14 Nov 2008 - 15 Nov 2008
War starts from Europe.
14-15 November 2008: European day of action against military infrastructure.
Europe is at war.
The bombs are not falling in Europe. They are falling several thousands of km away in Iraq and Afghanistan. But still war is waged from Europe. Europe serves as a launch pad for military interventions worldwide. The frameworks differ: NATO, EU, US coalition of the willing, UN. The targets also vary: Iraq,Afghanistan, Lebanon, Chad, etc. But the departure points don't:military bases and civilian airports and harbours in Europe.

Europe hosts a large military intervention machinery.

The Iraq war made this very visible. The US and the UK waged war from their European bases. In 2003, there were 54,000 Europe-based US military personnel who were directly involved in the war against Iraq. For example, the US Army was deployed out of Germany and Italy., Bombing flights departed from UK bases and aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean. Marines were inserted into northern Iraq from Crete and Bulgaria. And this is still going on. In 2006 two-thirds of the Europe based US military were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, preparing to depart or had just returned. Since January2003, over 1 million US troops have passed through Shannon Airport in Ireland en route to Afghanistan and Iraq. Airports across Europe have been used for 'rendition' flights. Without Europe the Iraq war was impossible.

European countries themselves are participating in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 25,000 European soldiers fight under NATO command in Afghanistan. EU forces are intervening in Africa. Both NATO and the EU are developing rapid intervention forces. Several European countries have military bases outside Europe to support their interventions.

We make war under the labels of 'military humanitarian intervention' and 'war against terrorism'. Behind these PR labels, the military intervention machineries protect economic interests and sustain the existing global order.

 

War Starts from Europe. Let's Stop War from Europe.
We call for a European day of nonviolent direct action against war on 14-15 November 2008. This day of action is not being organised by any one organisation ― the idea is that anti-militarists across Europe can adapt the action day to their local context. This call originated in discussions amongst anti-militarist activists from across Europe at the 'NATO: Game Over' action in March 2008.

It is important that we encourage and support each other. It can also be useful when doing media work to be able to say how widespread the day of action is across Europe. Log in to http://europeanpeaceaction.org to be inspired by others ideas and to post your planned action in advance (unless the action is a 'surprise'). After the action day please post reports/pictures/videos.

 

Take action at your local military bases and installations usedfor military interventions! Let's resist military globalisation together!

778
In Biggest Oil Sale Ever, Iraqi Government to Put 40 Billion Barrels of Reserves Up For Grabs

AlterNet

By Terry Macalister and Nicholas Watt, The Guardian Posted on October 13, 2008, Printed on November 1, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/102707/

The biggest ever sale of oil assets will take place today, when the Iraqi government puts 40 billion barrels of recoverable reserves up for offer in London.

BP, Shell and ExxonMobil are all expected to attend a meeting at the Park Lane Hotel in Mayfair with the Iraqi oil minister, Hussein al-Shahristani.

Access is being given to eight fields, representing about 40 percent of the Middle Eastern nation's reserves, at a time when the country remains under occupation by U.S. and British forces.

Two smaller agreements have already been signed with Shell and the China National Petroleum Corporation, but today's sale will ignite arguments over whether the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a "war for oil" that is now to be consummated by western multinationals seizing control of strategic Iraqi reserves.

Al-Shahristani is expected to reveal some kind of "risk service agreements" that could run for up to 20 years, with formal offers to be submitted by next spring and agreements signed in the summer.

Gregg Muttitt, from the UK-based social and ecological justice group Platform, says he is alarmed that the government is pushing ahead with its plans without the support of many in Iraq.

"Most of the terms of what is being offered have not been disclosed. There are security, political and reputational risks here for oil companies but none of them will want to see one of their competitors gain an advantage," he said.

Heinrich Matthee, a senior Middle East analyst at the specialist risk consultant Control Risks Group, also believes there are many pitfalls for those considering whether to make an offer.

"Currently it is unclear which party in Iraq is authorized to award a contract and at the same time to deliver its side of the bargain," he said. "Any contract with an independent oil company will be subjected to opposition and possible revision after pressure by resource nationalists."

Oil companies will find their reputations at risk from the actions of their Iraqi counterparties, such as joint venture partners, suppliers and agents. They will also have to contend with oil smuggling and the possibility that the ruling alliance could collapse, Matthee said.

He said that if the conspiracy theory that western oil companies egged on U.S. and British governments to invade Iraq were true, the plan could backfire on them and benefit rivals in Asia instead. "It is possible the American army has provided the economic stability that will encourage Malaysian, Chinese and other Asian companies to become involved," he said.

There is no precedent for proven oil reserves of this magnitude being offered up for sale, said Muttitt. "The nearest thing would be the post-Soviet sale of the Kashagan field [in the Caspian Sea], which had 7 billion or 8 billion barrels."

China's state-owned oil group, CNPC, has already agreed a $3 billion (£1.78bn) oil services contract with the government of Iraq to pump oil from the Ahdab oil field.

The deal is the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the U.S.-led war and was followed up by an agreement with Shell, potentially worth $4 billion, to develop a joint venture with the South Gas Company in Basra.

This deal has also triggered controversy. Issam al-Chalabi, Iraq's oil minister between 1987 and 1990, questioned why there had been no competitive tendering for the gas- gathering contract and claimed it had gone to Shell as the spoils of war.

"Why choose Shell when you could have chosen ExxonMobil, Chevron, BG or Gazprom?" he asked. "Shell appears to be paying $4 billion to get hold of assets that in 20 years could be worth $40 billion. Iraq is giving away half its gas wealth and yet this work could have been done by Iraq itself."

The Baghdad government says it aims to increase crude oil production from 2.5 million barrels a day to 4.5 million by 2013, but faces internal opposition from regional governors and political opponents.

The sale today comes as oil prices have plummeted after stockmarket turmoil on Friday. The price of crude fell by more than $4 at one point to $75 a barrel -- the lowest point since September last year and a sharp drop from its peak of $147 in July. Opec, the oil producers' cartel, has called an emergency meeting to agree a cut in output to bolster prices in spite of protestations from politicians including Gordon Brown. Brown said on Friday: "We've had some success in getting the price of oil down: the price this morning is roughly $80, about half what it was a few months ago. I want these price cuts passed on to the consumer as quickly as possible.

"I'm concerned when I hear that the Opec countries are meeting, or are about to meet, to discuss cutting production -- in other words, making the price potentially higher than it should be.

"I'm making it clear to Opec it would be wrong for the world economy and wrong for British people who are paying high petrol prices and high fuel prices to cut production and therefore keep prices high."

A government source said: "The one chink of light has been the fall in the price of oil. The last thing we want is to head into a difficult period with a return to high oil prices. People need to act responsibly."

© 2008 The Guardian All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/102707/

779
News Items / Re: Britain 'may need to send troops to Congo'
« on: November 02, 2008, 10:15:07 AM »
If there was any proof needed as to what Britain the US and France are up to in the Congo then the news that Malloch Brown Minister at the foreign office for Africa and Asia is involved and is floating the idea of troop involvement should spread the warning signs.  The truth is that British troops, British mercenaries and British armananents are aleady behind the massacres going on in Africa.  If you rely on the BBC then Africa  it reads like a James Bond movie with Africans killing themseves and agents like the Brave Mallock Brown and Ministers like David Milliband stepping in to save the day.   The fact that Britain is part of a gang of imperialists trying to rob the African people of their mineral wealth and creating mayhem and wars and massacres whilst trying to hide their involvement of course escapes the BBC news broadcasts. Mallock Brown no doubts styles himself on the James Bond character but the reality not the myth.  He has a government subsidised home  "The Admiralty House" and has been in the business of overthrowing governments since 1986

Check out Mallock Brown in this post we put in for your information. 
Mark `Moloch' Brown:The Empire's Coup Man in Georgia
http://www.northeaststopwar.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=41.0

780
News Items / Britain 'may need to send troops to Congo'
« on: November 02, 2008, 09:52:45 AM »
Britain 'may need to send troops to Congo'

By Gavin Cordon, PA Independent
Saturday, 1 November 2008

Britain may need to send troops to the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo if diplomatic efforts to find a solution to the crisis fail, a Foreign Office minister warned today.

Lord Malloch-Brown said that the UK and other European powers could not stand back if the fighting between government and rebel forces erupted again.

His comments came as Foreign Secretary David Miliband and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner were embarking on a joint mission to the region to try to bring the warring parties together.

Lord Malloch-Brown said that while the priority was to find a diplomatic solution, contingency plans were being drawn up for the deployment of an EU force to bolster United Nations peacekeepers.

"We have certainly got to have it as an option which is developed and on the table if we need it," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.


"The first line of call on this should be the deployment of the UN's own troops from elsewhere in the country.

"But we have got to have plans. If everything else fails we cannot stand back and watch violence erupt.

"Britain is currently the so-called standby country which would indeed need to contribute.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown today spoke of his fears for people in the Congo.

Mr Brown, on a visit to the Gulf states, said: "My worry is about the thousands of people being displaced at the moment by the violence that is taking place.

"There is only a solution to this by discussion and not by military means."

He said he believed Mr Miliband and other delegations could "make progress" in defusing the crisis.
 
 

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 57