Archive | July 15th, 2013

CIA Puppets Pakistan Taliban ‘sets up a base in Syria’


The Pakistani Taliban have visited Syria to set up a base and to assess “the needs of the jihad”, a Taliban official has told the BBC.

He said that the base was set up with the assistance of ex-Afghan fighters of Middle Eastern origin who have moved to Syria in recent years.

At least 12 experts in warfare and information technology had gone to Syria in the last two months, he said.

Their presence in the country is likely to have a sectarian motive.

Taliban factions feel that Sunni Muslims, who constitute a majority in Syria, are being oppressed by Syria’s predominantly Shia rulers.

Thousands of people have died in the year-long armed conflict in Syria between loyalists of the ruling Baath Party and those who want to overthrow it.

The Pakistani government has not commented on the allegations.

Mohammad Amin, a senior Taliban operative and “co-ordinator of the Syrian base”, told the BBC that the cell to monitor “the jihad” in Syria was set up six months ago.

He said that the cell has the approval of militant factions both within and outside of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an umbrella organisation of militant groups fighting the Pakistani forces.

The cell sends “information and feedback” on the conflict in Syria back to Pakistan, he said,

“They were facilitated by our friends in Syria who have previously been fighting in Afghanistan,” Mr Amin said.

Their job is to “assess the needs of the Jihad in Syria, and to work out joint operations with our Syrian friends”.

“There are dozens of Pakistani hopefuls in line to join the fighting against the Syrian army, but the advice we are getting at the moment is that there’s already enough manpower in Syria.”

In the past, militant fighters from Pakistan have often gone to fight in Central Asia and the Balkans.

In the 1990s, militant group Harkatul Mujahideen, was known to have sent a large number of men to fight in the Bosnian civil war of 1992-95.

Many Afghan and Pakistani fighters also fought on the side of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict of 1988-94.

A number of Taliban groups in Pakistan have sectarian leanings, and resent the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – having a Shia background – over Sunni Muslims who constitute about three-quarters of the Syrian population.

Sources say that anti-Shia groups in Pakistan have access to considerable charity funds raised in some Middle Eastern sheikhdoms that see their domestic Shia populations as a problem.

Posted in AfghanistanComments Off on CIA Puppets Pakistan Taliban ‘sets up a base in Syria’

Syrian Preacher: The Jews have 2 goals–Divide the nations of the world, rip them apart and then destroy their morals


A Syrian preacher recently accused the Jews of being responsible for the ongoing civil strife throughout the Middle East.

Israel National News

A Syrian preacher recently accused Jews of being responsible for all the Muslims’ woes, including the ongoing civil strife throughout the Middle East.

The remarks were made in a sermon at the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, which aired on Syrian TV on June 28.

They were translated and posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). 

“Let us take a look at the history of mankind, which has recorded the true nature of the Jews, the slayers of prophets and violators of agreements. It shows how they have tried, since pre-Islamic times, to fragment, divide, and rip apart the Arab and Islamic nation,” claimed the preacher.

“In an effort to gain influence in the world and to realize their desires, the Jews have set two basic goals. Listen, oh Muslims, and beware of what is happening in Syria – in that land with steadfast people and leadership.

“They have two basic goals. The first is to divide the nations of the world, to pit them one against the other, and to spark war and civil strife among them. The second goal is to rip apart the nations of the world, destroying their notions, moral values, and codes, and making them stray from the path of Allah,” he said.

“That is what they did throughout the ages all over the world. Oh nation of Islam, the Jews have been tearing this nation apart for many years.

“What is happening today in this steadfast fortress [Syria], and in the Middle East in general, is nothing new. It was premeditated.

“We are a nation in slumber, a nation that does not study the books of history, and has not studied what its enemies are plotting and devising against it. They kindled the spark of civil strife in Palestine and in Afghanistan, and then in Iraq, then in Egypt, and after that, in Syria,” stated the preacher.

Israel has made it clear that it does not intervene in the affairs of neighboring countries, including Syria, but it does act when its red lines are crossed.

“We’ve established red lines regarding our interests and we maintain them. Whenever there is an explosion or attack over there, the Middle East blames us anyway,” Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said last week.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday declined to comment on reports that Israel had carried out air strikes on July 5 near the Syrian port city of Latakia to destroy Russian-supplied anti-ship missiles.

“Every time something happens in the Middle East Israel is most often accused. And I’m not in the habit of saying what we did or we didn’t do,” he told CBS.

“My policy is to prevent the transfer of dangerous weapons to Hizbullah and other terror groups,” he said.

Despite the fact that Israel does not take sides in the civil war in Syria, a commander in the Syrian opposition recently claimed that Israel was collaborating with Iran and Hizbullah to keep President Bashar al-Assad in power.

Assad, for his part, has claimed the opposite, that Israel is assisting the rebels fighting to topple his regime.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian Preacher: The Jews have 2 goals–Divide the nations of the world, rip them apart and then destroy their morals

Spy Drones in Widespread Use Across USA, Targeting Americans, Secret Documents Now Reveal


As regular readers of Natural News are well aware, we track the state of freedom in America – food freedom, the freedom to buy and sell our goods, the right to live free of government interference and, most importantly, the right to be left alone.


By J.D Heyes

Nowhere in the world is privacy as under assault as it is in America, the one country with a written governing document – the U.S. Constitution – thatspecifically prohibits our government from denying us our right to privacy. If we had leaders of integrity this wouldn’t be an issue, but the government in Washington is behaving precisely the way our leaders have fashioned it, so serial violations of our rights is the norm these days rather than the exception.

‘Look – up in the sky! Smile! You’re on camera…’

Take the issue of drone usage to spy on us. The use of drones by government has exploded in recent years, and for reasons that have nothing to do with “security” or “law enforcement” or under the guise of “protecting us.” No, these drones are being used by both state and federal governments to spy on Americans, as if tracking our snail mail and all electronic communications isn’t enough.

Per the Electronic Freedom Frontier, an advocacy group that tracks abuses of privacy in the Digital Age:

Recently released daily flight logs from Customs & Border Protection (CPB) show the agency has sharply increased the number of missions its 10 Predator drones have flown on behalf of state, local and non-CPB federal agencies. Yet, despite this increase – eight-fold between 2010 and 2012 – CBP has failed to explain how it’s protecting our privacy from unwarranted drone surveillance.

Now granted, the Border Patrol has a tough job patrolling the nearly 2,000-mile long U.S. border with Mexico, which is where the bulk of illegal aliens and drugs enter our country. But the 10 Predators the agency acquired over the past few years are no longer being used solely for border enforcement.

“As far as I know, CBP’s drone program was intended and authorized by Congress for the purpose of patrolling the nation’s borders,” writes Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst for the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “It was not intended to be a general law enforcement drone “lending library,” in which Predator drones (which are quite unlike the small UAVs that police departments around the country are beginning to acquire and deploy) are used for all manner of purposes across the country.”


Bad and getting worse

According to documents obtained by EFF, the CBP’s drones have been utilized to conduct surveillance for a range of federal agencies including the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Marshal Service and the Coast Guard. In addition, the Predators have been used to support surveillance operations for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the North Dakota Army National Guard, and the Texas Department of Public Safety, EFF said, adding:

CBP also flew its drones for non-law enforcement agencies and missions. The logs show that CBP conducted extensive “electro-optical, thermal infrared imagery and Synthetic Aperture Radar” surveillance of levees along the Mississippi River and river valleys across several states, along with surveillance of the massive Deep Water Horizon oil spill and other natural resources for the US Geological Survey, FEMA, the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Look, even innocuous-sounding missions should raise red flags. Americans cannot go anywhere anymore to simply function in society – to buy groceries, go to the movies or visit friends, for instance – without being under some kind of surveillance every step of the way.

Cities, states and now the federal government are telling us they are watching us 24/7/365 to simply try to keep us safe, but the Constitution does not permit such broad, continuous surveillance. It is a blatant violation of our right to privacy, which is not allowable. There is no “except in cases of ensuring public safety” provision in the Fourth Amendment.

That said, expect the violations to get worse – that is, unless the whole of Washington and elected leaders in cities and states around the country suddenly grow a conscience, and you know what the chances are of that happening.


Posted in USAComments Off on Spy Drones in Widespread Use Across USA, Targeting Americans, Secret Documents Now Reveal

IsraHell runs Hizbullah website


IsraHell runs Hizbullah website
On July 14, 2013, Israeli daily YNet reported that Israeli army’s propaganda branch launched a new website, “Hizbullah, Army of Terror”, to mark the 7th anniversary of defeat in 2006 war with HizbullahAccording to the newspaper, “the website will offer in-depth information, analysis on Hizbullah, in bid to push additional countries to add group to terrorist list“. The problem with the web’s name is; Hizbullah has no tank, no jet, no bomb and no navy ship – which are part of a conventional army.The website claims that “Seven years later,” Hizbullah is more stronger than ever.“Hezbollah has developed capabilities to strike anywhere in Israel,” the website warns.A neon-green graphic that follows the text shows the different weapons Hizbullah now has in its arsenal and how far each one is able to reach.
The missile with the longest range, the Scud-D, can travel more than 430 miles, potentially penetrating deep into Israel and several American military assets in the region“Since the war, Hezbollah has tripled the size of its missile arsenal. In 2009, Israel army intelligence report revealed that Hizbullah had built close to 1,000 military facilities throughout southern Lebanon. The installations included more than 550 weapons bunkers and 300 underground facilities. Since the report’s release, Hizbullah has continued to build facilities in the region, enhancing its ability to strike at nearby Israeli towns and cities,” says the website.The website says that Israel is in more danger now than ever before.Lieutenant Colonel Avital Leibovich, the head of the new Hasbara (propaganda) branch, says some 30 soldiers work there, and put out content in English, Hebrew, Arabic, French, Spanish and Russian. Two of the soldiers, she says, are native Egyptians who moved to Israel about seven years ago.The website has posted some very funny articles; calling Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: “A Life of Terror” and claiming “Hizbullah Violates UN Resolutions”.
To my recollection, no country has issued arrest warrant against Nasrallah while many Israeli politicians and military leaders are avoiding half-a-dozen European nations fearing being arrested as mass murderers. It’s not Hizbullah but Israel which has violated over 67 UN Resolutions so far.However, a great majority of Lebanese who put their trust in Hizbullah rather Lebanese army to defend the country – are not impressed with contents of the website.“This is the kind of information that any person can get on the web,” Farid Chedid, the editor of Lebanon Wire told The Media Line. “There is nothing new – it’s just a compilation of anti-Hezbollah propaganda.”“Hizbullah in not only a military resistance and political part – it also runs a network of schools and clinics, providing salaries to thousands of Lebanese and social services to many more,” says Chedid.
In December 2010, Gen. Giora Eiland, former national security adviser to former prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, told Israel Radio that the Jewish army can’t defeat Hizbullah alone.“Israel does not know how to beat Hizbullah. Therefore a war waged only as Israel-versus-Hezbollah might yield better damage on Hizbullah, but Hezbollah would inflict far worse damage on the Israeli homefront than it did 4-1/2 years ago. Our only way of preventing the next war, and of winning if it happens anyway, is for it to be clear to everyone that another war between us and Hezbollah will be a war between Israel and the state of Lebanon and will wreak destruction on the state of Lebanon. And as no one – including Hizbullah, the Syrians or the Iranians – is interested in this, this is the best way of creating effective deterrence,” said Gen. Eiland.So far, only the US, Britain, Canada,
Netherlands and Bahrain have bought Israel’s unproven terrorist allegations (in Argentina, Bulgaria, Turkey, Cyprus, India, Thailand, etc.) against Hizbullah by listing it “a terrorist organization”. The European Union (EU), so far, has resisted pressure from Israel, the US, the UK, France, Germany and western Jewish lobby organizations to classify Hizbullah as “a terrorist organization”.What a shame, while Israelis boast their army to the 4th most powerful force, thanks to Washington’s military and financial support – is affraid of a Muslim guerilla force of a few thousands fighters.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, LebanonComments Off on IsraHell runs Hizbullah website

Meet the 28-year-old pushing the US toward greater intervention in Syria


In two windowless offices just one block away from the White House, Mouaz Moustafa is working to persuade Congress and the executive branch to put the weight of American power behind the Syrian rebels seeking to overthrow the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.The 28-year-old leads the Syrian Emergency Task Force, the group that famously snuck Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain into Syria in May to meet with leaders of the Syrian opposition.
McCain calls Moustafa a “patriot” and says he is “a tireless champion for the cause of freedom for Syria.” Robert Zarate of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a think tank that supports greater American intervention in Syria, says that Moustafa’s group has been “indispensable” in fight to get American power more involved in the Syrian conflict.
[ed note; the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a ziocon think tank begun in 2009 by William Kristol, the founder of the Project for the New American Century.
“The Syrian Emergency Task Force, along with the Syrian Support Group, both have played indispensable roles in helping U.S. policymakers and lawmakers not only to better understand, but also to respond more effectively to, the escalating crisis in Syria,” he told TheDCWhen TheDC met Moustafa in late June, he looked as if the weight of Aleppo was on his shoulders. He had just returned from one of his regular trips to Syria, where the over two year long revolution-turned-civil war has not been going particularly well for the rebels. Moustafa argues that if the U.S. doesn’t act soon to help the opposition forces succeed, the consequences could be dire for Syria — and bloody for America.
Among the parade of horribles Moustafa foresees is a decade-long civil war that tears the “social fabric of Syria apart,” that destroys the institutions that exist in Syria, that empowers Iran and its terrorist proxy Hezbollah, that breaks up Syria into various fiefdoms controlled by different factions,[[[[ that destabilizes Jordan]]]] and that allows Syria’s chemical weapons to spread to terrorist groups. And this, he warned ominously, could come back to bite America.
Born in Damascus to a Palestinian father and a Syrian mother, Moustafa and his family moved to Arkansas when he was twelve. He would attend high school in Hot Springs, become an American citizen and excel in soccer, which he says is “all I cared about” during his early college years. His Twitter handle today is @SoccerMouaz. After college, he worked as an intern on the Hill for Arkansas Democrat Rep. Vic Snyder and later as a staffer for former Arkansas Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln. When Lincoln was defeated in the 2010 tea party wave, he briefly went into freelance journalism. But when the Arab Spring erupted in 2011, he found his calling. 
[ed notes;intern for rep. vic snyder??? Legislation Sponsored or Cosponsored by Vic Snyder  H.Res.833 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)
RESOLUTION  Latest Title: Honoring the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the[[[Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan]]]]….
 H.Con.Res.206 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)RESOLUTION Latest Title: Commending the soldiers and civilian personnel stationed at Fort Gordon and their families for their service and dedication to the United States and recognizing the contributions of Fort Gordon to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
Moustafa [[[[first worked for a group that supported the Egyptian Revolution and then as executive director of the Libyan Council of North America]]]]
, which [[[[[[supported the Libyan Revolution. In that role, he says, he met with White House National Security Council staff, briefed congressmen and advised the Libyan ambassador to the United States when he defected]]]]]]]. But the revolutionary dominoes in the Middle East continued to topple — until they finally reached Syria in March 2011. “When Syria began, it was scary, because it was much more home for me,” Moustafa said. 
[ed notes:taken part in two zionist western sponsored revolutions then he wants to give impression he was caught by surprise on the third?lol
The Syrian Emergency Task Force is one of several organizations pushing America toward greater intervention in Syria (Moustafa himself is actually the political director of another.) As executive director of SETF, Moustafa says he leads a staff of eight in Washington and roughly an equal amount in field offices in Syria. In the small office where TheDC met Moustafa, an American flag was leaning to the side, its base tipped over a bundle of open boxes.
[[[[ A Syrian rebel flag with the words “Freedom” hung on the wall, along with a map of the country. Above Moustafa’s desk was a framed document marking an alliance between the Syrian-American community and the Cuban-American community. Both communities, he said, understand the perils of “facing a dictatorship.”]]]]] Testifying to the gravity of the issues he deals with, Moustafa’s desk was littered with defense journals, like “Jane’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense 2010-2011” and “Jane’s Mines and Mine Clearance 2010-2011.” While advocating for greater intervention in Syria,
Moustafa says he has gone to Tampa to meet with Central Command, to Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress and to the White House “every couple of months” to meet with staff of the National Security Council. And if you are wondering who is sorting through the Syrian morass to find groups that are suitable for American aid — in other words, not members of al-Qaida — Moustafa says it’s a task his group performs as well.[[[[ “What we try to do is make sure is that the aid is going from the State Department is going to the right people,” he said]]].
 “There are hundreds of groups, and most of them Islamist. So even worse prospects, right?,” Moustafa said when presented with the Economist magazine statistic. He countered, however, by saying the statistic was actually an argument for why America needs to be more involved in the conflict. “Weapons are coming in” now, he said, and in the absence of American leadership, they are not going “to the guys we want.” But considering the Islamists seem to be far and away the most successful and arguably most zealous of the opposition forces — in at least one case literally eating the heart of their enemy — wouldn’t American intervention just be helping to bring about an Islamist state in Syria? [[[“Anyone that tells you that they would know what will happen after [Assad falls] is a liar,”]]]] Moustafa said. 
[ed notes;i do!reconstruction efforts and money will ,and can only come from western lending institutions,and whatever puppets are hushered in will follow the Egyptian,Tunisian neoliberal model,wether they are seculars or islamists wich will be chosen by west…
“I could tell you that when [the good elements of the opposition] are supported, people rally around them more, the hierarchy becomes more clear,” he added. “People are looking for a third option. Many people in Jabhat al-Nusra would like to find somebody else to join on to that agree with their ideology or with their outlook on Syria.” 
 [ed notes:is he arguing that al nusra terrorists now seek  to join third party groups,under moderate label???al nusra facelift anyone?
Jabhat al-Nusra is widely considered the strongest rebel group. It also happens to be an al-Qaida affiliate. Late last year, the U.S. deemed it a terrorist organization.
Is Moustafa suggesting that members of the group are not really supporters of it? “Absolutely, by no means at all [do all those fighting with the group] identify with that ideology,” he claimed. “Let’s look at the Jabhat al-Nusra. Didn’t exist, then existed. Came up to numbers [of] about 5,000 or 6,000. Then we put them on a terrorist list — increase their profile and people stood with them. I think the way they were thinking is, ‘you don’t support us, you don’t give us arms, you don’t give us anything,(your client regimes in gulf give us everything however) but then you tell us whose good and whose bad within us?’ So first support, then dictate.”
[ed notes:but the us does support them,thru its allies…you see us treasury sanctioning nusras financial backers in Gulf?Course not,,why not?becaus ethey are proxies used by us client regimes,utilized to acomplish a desired goal..what hes asking openly(and mind you he coordinates funds to opposition thru zionist ran us state dept*)for us to fund al qaeda,openly mind you(they cant however,due to contrictions wich expose their fake war on terror),openly!!!
The conservative Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has argued, in a very realpolitik way, that the West benefits from a prolonged civil war in Syria in which Hezbollah terrorists supporting the Assad regime and al-Qaida terrorists in the opposition continue to kill each other. Moustafa says that while this may sound appealing in some abstract way in the short term, in the long term, such a policy would be disastrous.
“You don’t even have to look too far ahead to see that this is a disaster, and the thought that ‘just let them kill each other and see what happens after’ is only going to come back to haunt us ten times more,” he said.
At the end of the day, Iran and Hezbollah, regardless of how many losses they have, they would have recruited more. They would have instilled their interests in the region, without the hassle of having to deal with a regime, at the same time giving a reason for extremist groups to take a foothold. In Iraq, it was the Sunni Awakening, for example, that got rid of some extremist elements. You would have that on a national level in Syria if you were able to save the country.” 
[ed notes;sunni awakening in iraq got rid of some extremists?when?how?>by sending them to Syria to fight against overwhelming majority backed Assad?Same Assad who allowed them to use Syria to go and fight american occupation???
While Moustafa praised President Obama’s June decision to provide some weaponry directly to the Syrian rebels after the U.S. concluded the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, he believes the U.S. needs to do much more.
He says the U.S. must take the lead as the world’s superpower and “[unite] the funders” to “support the Supreme Military Council under General Idris,” which he believes will weaken the extremist elements among the rebels that are currently being funded by Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He also believes a U.S.-sponsored no fly-zone is necessary, and possibly strategic air strikes as well. 
[[[[[[“We are looking for something in the style of Bosnia and Kosovo, where we lost no soldiers, where it was mostly an aerial campaign, where the United States led, and where you have democracies [today],” he said]]]]].
Among the legislators who have been most helpful to his cause, he said, are (all zionists) McCain, New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Bob Menendez of New Jersey, as well as Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. 

Posted in USAComments Off on Meet the 28-year-old pushing the US toward greater intervention in Syria

New discoveries concerning Operation Condor WHAT IF CUBA PROTECTED MURDERERS OF AMERICAN DIPLOMATS? [Video]


 Cubainformación TV – Basado en un texto de Jean-Guy Allard
Two CIA agents were involved during Argentina’s dictatorship in the torture sessions of two Cuban diplomats, whose remains were found a few months ago. The two criminals are called Michael Townley, U.S., and Guillermo Novo Sampol, born in Cuba and for years the terrorist collaborator and former traffic CIA Luis Posada Carriles. They now live quietly in the U.S. under the full protection of the FBI, CIA and the State Department. The tortured and killed Cuban diplomats were called Crescendo Galañena and Jesús Cejas.

The remains of the latter have just been delivered to Cuba by the Government of Argentina. Jose Luis Mendez, Cuban historian who has spent years researching the dirty war against his country, met a few years ago Manuel Contreras Sepulveda, head of DINA, Chile’s secret police during the dictatorship of PinochetContreras revealed that, in August 1976, the cited CIA agents Michael Townley and Guillermo Novo were sent to Argentina to interrogate and torture the Cuban diplomats. The remains of two people were found, several months ago, in the town of Viceroys, 28 kilometers from Buenos Aires, in an area where you are looking for more victims of the dictatorship Argentina. Can you imagine what the media would tell everyone if Cuba protect torturers and murderers of U.S. diplomats? 

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on New discoveries concerning Operation Condor WHAT IF CUBA PROTECTED MURDERERS OF AMERICAN DIPLOMATS? [Video]

LeJ terrorist Malik Ishaq Practising Infantry Skills with the Elite Police Force


LeJ terrorist Malik Ishaq Practising Infantry Skills with the Elite Police Force

Here is a fleeting video(click above link for video) that shows notorious terrorist Malik Ishaq borrowing the gun from an Elite Police Force policeman and firing a round in the air. Now, notorious terrorist Malik Ishaq surely fires many rounds during his routine life and this video should be of no surprise. However, this momentary clip stands out in its important because it shows to what the country’s government and security agencies are complicit with the terrorists. 
This is yet another blatant manifestation of the depths to which the rule of law has sunk in this country and further proof that even as the government issues statements against the extremism, it simultaneously deals with sectarian terrorists in a manner that runs directly contrary to both the imperatives of maintaining law and order and the fundamental tenets of democracy.Such complicity should have no place in a country that is fighting for its life against terrorism. Notorious terrorist Malik Ishaq is known for continuously inciting sectarian hatred, threatening Shias in the country, and carrying out those threats.
There is no rationale in the authorities continuing to permit rallies filled with hate speech against the Shia community and their way of life to take place in every major town in this country. Terrorist Malik Ishaq’s LeJ has overtly claimed responsibility for a spate of coordinated deadly assaults that have left thousands dead, including a series of bomb blasts around Pakistan. It is a fact that Malik Ishaq’s family was paid a regular stipend by the Punjab government during Malik’s incarceration.
And now we witness him honing his infantry skills under the supervision of our Elite Police Force. This evidences how the government in Pakistan affords hate groups significant state patronage, making it clear that the government deals its justice by two yardsticks, one for the hard-line takfiri community, which can spout invective against other religions groups freely, and another for the rest of us who dare to issue warnings about the dangerous state of affairs in the Islamic Republic. Does it not show where the regime truly stands when it comes to ending hatred and violence? 
[ed notes:click link for more… 

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on LeJ terrorist Malik Ishaq Practising Infantry Skills with the Elite Police Force

The Victory Hour

The Victory Hour July 13, 2013

by crescentandcross


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on The Victory Hour


Posted by J

false flag

 The second perverse policy is the so called “Global War on Terrorism.” As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely make the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of “sustained hysteria” over potential terrorist attacks, order the removal of most of the new safety barriers in Washington and elsewhere, treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence, and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.  Lt.Gen William Odom

The second perverse policy is the so called “Global War on Terrorism.” As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely make the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of “sustained hysteria” over potential terrorist attacks, order the removal of most of the new safety barriers in Washington and elsewhere, treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence, and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.
Lt.Gen William Odom

Actually, there has been another former NSA Director, Lt. General William Odom,appointed by Reagan no less, that has been perhaps “inadvertent” and a kind of “whistle-blower” for some time.

Here General Odom, no “Leftie Conspiracy Theorist” of any sort for sure, lets it out:

1) The system of the U.S. is indeed an Empire (not a reluctant one, not an inadvertant one as Odom asserts, or informal one) that is an Imperial Hegemon and with Hegemonic Intentions [NOTE: General Odom’s whole essay shows anything BUT an “Informal”, or “Accidental” or “Inadvertent” EMPIRE but it does show an EMPIRE; and any notion of a “Benevolent Empire” is oxymoronic]

2) The main threat to this global hegemonic system is not from terrorism or supposed new threats like China, but from the quality–or more to the point lack of it–in American Leadershbip (along with basic contradictions of the hegemonic system itself WHICH HE DOES NOT MENTION);

3) That this system of Empire Sui Generis is, and always has been very profitable and is all about profit and power and not any kind of “benevolence” or good-will toward other nations;

Here are some quotes from his paper “AMERICAN HEGEMONY: HOW TO USE IT, HOW TO LOSE IT”

America’s global hegemony is generally accepted as a fact. Only its duration is in question. Will it end next year, within several years, or will it last for many decades hence? Ultimately, the answer to how long American hegemony will endure will not be given by a rising new threat from, say, China or terrorism. Rather, the quality of American leaders will provide it. Put simply, how our leaders use American hegemony will determine whether or not we lose it.

The Nature of the American Empire


ODOM: I begin by stating the obvious: America presides over an empire, but it has acquired this empire inadvertently. [BLATANT LIE OR ERROR] It is not a traditional type of empire, but rather, a sui generis one; that is, it is a regime type heretofore unknown. Four characteristics define America’s inadvertent empire:


RESPONSE Jim Craven: Caroll Quigley, noted historian of the rise and fall of empires, in his “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Unabridged”, CSG and Associates Press, San Pedro, CA 1966 list some 28 Empires in history but wonders if America ever was, is or could be an empire. Why? Perhaps because even according to him, all empires are ultimately doomed to fail for various reasons such as overreach, internal rot and corruption and some of the classical reasons for fall of empire. The U.S. is often described or characterized as an informal empire, accidental empire, inadvertent empire (Odom), benevolent empire, exceptional empire, reluctant empire, but not as an Imperium or Imperialist system except by its victims. According to another scholar on empires Timothy H. Parsons:

“It is hardly surprising that the rulers and the ruled had differing perspectives on empire. The myth of the liberal empire survives to this day because the voices of men like Nguta were either silenced or never recorded at all. Instead, popular history romanticizes Caesars, emirs, conquistadors, viceroys, nabobs, explorers, soldiers, and missionaries. Westerners like to think they are the heirs of an omnipotent and enlightened imperial Rome.” [p.2] … and “The terrorist attacks of 2001 gave imperial methods, if not the actual empire building, a new lease on life…” [p.2]…”The legal scholar Amy Chua similarly believed empires could be a force for global stability if they were sufficiently diverse, pluralistic and tolerant…This reading of history ignores the essential characteristics of empire; the permanent rule and exploitation of a defeated people by a conquering power. By their very nature, empires can never be–and never were–humane, liberal, or tolerant. Would-be Caesars throughout history sought glory, land, and most important, plunder. This true nature of empire was more obvious in pre-modern times when it was unnecessary to disguise such base motives. In recent centuries, however, imperial conquerors have tried to hide their naked self-interest by promising to rule for the good of their subjects. This was and always will be a cynical and hypocritical canard. Empire has never been more than naked self-interest masquerading as virtue. [p. 4]” (FROM: “The Rule of Empires: Those Who Built Them, Those Who Endured Them, and Why they Always Fail.” by Timothy H. Parsons, Oxford University Press, N.Y. 2010 pp 2 and 4)


promises have been kept

First, it is ideological, not territorialIts ideology is Classical Liberalism, not democracy. Our founding fathers did not use the word democracy in the Constitution. They sought to limit the state and guarantee individual rights. Once rights were secure, voting would follow, not the other way around. The American empire, therefore, consists of constitutional states, not dictatorships and illiberal democracies.


Second, the American empire has been a money making, not a money losing regime. Throughout the Cold War, when the defense budget on average consumed 7.2 percent of GDP, the United States sustained unprecedented growth. So too did Western Europe and Northeast Asia. Both had their longest periods of peace and greatest prosperity, parallel to America’s prosperity during the Cold War. Contrary to popular belief, however, Japan and Europe did not get rich at our expense. In fact, throughout this period we have maintained between 20 and 30 percent of the world’s Gross Product.

alqaeda and Obamas_first_gift_to_Pakistan

Third, countries have fought to join the American empire, not to leave it (although since the U.S. invasion of Iraq this dynamic may be changing). Consequently, the American empire has no formal boundaries or membership. Any country with a constitutional order, stable property rights, and effective dispute adjudication in autonomous courts may consider itself a member (Switzerland and Austria, for example, are included). Some countries with constitutional orders that are not yet mature Liberal regimes also belong because they are within our military alliances. Of the roughly forty countries that can claim membership, only about two dozen have stable constitutional systems, that is, systems that have lasted a generation or more. The others, mostly new members of NATO, are committed to constitutional development. However, they are still struggling to last for more than a generation without a relapse, which constitutes the usual standard for assessing whether or not a lasting constitutional order has been achieved.





Fourth, our military alliances in Europe and Northeast Asia have supplied supranational political-military governance for our allies, many of whom were once at enmity amongst themselves. These U.S. military umbrellas provide our allies the mutual trust that, in turn, lowers business transaction costs, and permits these states to capture greater gains from trade. Today, these trust-inducing and economic roles are still needed in both regions, even without an external military threat.Beyond military alliances, the United States created a governing network of economic and judicial institutions—the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, international courts, and others. These organizations have also facilitated economic growth through rule-based decision making rather than by imperial dictates. These practices have lowered the costs to the United States of managing both the international organizations in which it participates, as well as its military alliances.
Consequently, when American leaders belittle and condemn these organizations, they endanger the very foundations of this remarkable system of mutually beneficial Liberal governance. The cost is not just damage to our ideals. It also involves billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses. How and why is this true? The reasons are straightforward. As Nobel Laureate economist Douglass North has demonstrated, governance by rule-based, third-party enforcement actually lowers transaction costs for business and makes long term economic growth possible. This is why the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, and other such international institutions reduce the price America must pay to manage this unique international system.

cfr shadow government thumbnail

To sum up, whether domestic or international, Liberal institutions—not democracy—are the key source of American power at home and abroad.Democracy does become an indispensable component of constitutional regimes, but it is Liberal institutions on which such regimes ultimately rest. The states within the American empire today produce 70 percent of the world’s Gross Product with only 17 percent of the world’s population. That figure alone gives us a real sense of how much more productive power Liberal institutions can generate compared to any other kind. It also shows that the main obstacle to peace and prosperity in those countries outside the American empire is not money, but rather, a shortage of constitutional government. No amount of economic aid will either compensate for, or produce that kind of government. In fact, most economic aid makes it less likely that poor countries will achieve effective government.


Unfortunately, no one knows precisely how to create Liberal institutions. Their emergence is highly problematic and rare; moreover, most of them have arisen only after periods of violence that led to compromise among the elites and some type of a deal between elites to abide by rules. At the same time, violence has far more often thrown countries off the track to a compromise. The record to date suggests that ethnic, racial, and sectarian fragmentation in a country makes a constitutional breakthrough virtually impossible. It also suggests that most political cultures outside of the traditional Western world are highly resistant to the idea of a “contract state” and inalienable civil rights. On this point, Japan, Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore stand out as huge exceptions; they are not fully constitutional in all cases, but certainly close to it.

This evidence suggests that few additional countries will soon become constitutional and able to sustain long term growth. Neither China, nor India, nor Russia is a good prospect. All three may prosper for a while, but not in the long run unless they can create domestic Liberal institutions. This is why rising challengers cannot destroy the American empire or degrade American hegemony. Only its leaders can do that by throwing away our primacy.

How to Use American Hegemony


Who exactly is the "THEY" and who exactly is the "US" in this question? And "WHY" is this question even posed, let alone this way?

Who exactly is the “THEY” and who exactly is the “US” in this question? And “WHY” is this question even posed, let alone this way?

For most of the Cold War, American leaders used our hegemony with remarkable effectiveness. 
[SO HOW “INADVERTENT THEN IS THIS EMPIRE? – JMC] The Marshall Plan is merely one of many examples. Stabilizing Northeast Asia during and after the Korean War is another.
Less well remembered is bringing West Germany into NATO against strong French resistance. Once the Soviet Union made unambiguous its intent not to support restoration of a united Germany, the United States began pushing for the reconstruction of Germany and a Western security system. France, having engaged Britain in the 5 Dunkirk Treaty (a bilateral hedge against Germany), resisted multilateral arrangements. British initiatives, however, eventually helped Washington to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization against French preferences for a network of bilateral treaties.

By letting these initiatives come from European states themselves, Washington positioned itself to guide the process benignly toward a large multilateral solution. By contrast, had the United States taken the initiative unilaterally, its efforts would have left Washington at odds with most Western European states and probably killed any serious chance of forming NATO before the Korean War. Only when the Korean War broke out did the United States take the near-term Soviet military threat seriously and begin to advance the idea of German rearmament. When France used the concept of the European Defense Community (EDC) to block German rearmament, Washington sought to use the EDC to justify German sovereignty. For two years, Washington danced around French blocking tactics, and while Paris refused to dissolve its own army into the European Defense Community, by 1955 it finally accepted Germany’s sovereignty and its membership in NATO. Had the United States insisted on that outcome in 1952 or 1953, it might well have destroyed the Atlantic alliance.

This pattern of letting our allies take the initiative, nudging, encouraging, not demanding, often adjusting to European concerns, and getting help from some countries in convincing those that resist, produced constructive outcomes. For example, the doctrine of “forward defense” for NATO in 1967–68, the third attempt at an agreed overall NATO defense plan (MC 14/3), was achieved in precisely this way, with a European-led study (the Harmel Report) advancing a compromise. We saw this pattern again, both in the decision to deploy intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe during the Carter administration, and in successfully deploying them against much Soviet-backed and inspired European public opposition during the Reagan administration.

Yet, none of these examples can rival what American leaders accomplished through the reunification of Germany in 1990. This was the largest strategic realignment without a major war in the history of modern Europe—a feat so spectacular that it is unlikely to be rivaled any time soon in the history of diplomacy. Although today we tend to take Germany’s successful reunification as foreordained, it was not. Had the Europeans had their way in a straight up or down vote, only two countries, the United States and West Germany, would have voted for it. In that event, Germany would have reunited anyway, but outside of NATO, while a rump Warsaw Pact would have survived. Europe then would have been without the European Union, and the continent would have experienced profound political and military turmoil.

Yet, through skillful diplomacy backed by overwhelming U.S. military and economic power, President George H. W. Bush backed German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in cutting a deal with Moscow. Bush then split Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—the most adamant opponent of German unification—from a far less adamant opponent, President Francois Mitterand, to push through NATO approval. While Bush cornered Thatcher, Kohl appeased Mitterand by promising to push through the Maasstricht Treaty. Thus Germany was reunified within NATO, the European Union was soon born from the Maasstricht Treaty, and both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union collapsed. Not even the hardest of American hardliners against Soviet power would have believed that this outcome was possible. Make no mistake: future historians will judge this achievement as among the greatest diplomatic feats ever accomplished. It certainly took skill, but what truly made it possible was the intelligent exercise of hegemonic American power via U.S. military guarantees and international institutions like NATO.

As a final example of good stewardship over American hegemony, let us recall the Persian Gulf War in 1990–91. President George H. W. Bush won UN Security Council backing, assembled a large military coalition (including French forces), expelled Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and persuaded Japan, Germany, and a dozen other countries to contribute sufficient funds to cover the entire operation. All these examples illustrate what I mean when I speak about “how to use American hegemony” in ways that promote its durability. Over the last dozen years, however, and especially since 2002, we have seen troubling examples of how to lose it.

How to Lose American Hegemony

Karma-Time for America: "As you sow, so shall ye reap"

Karma-Time for America: “As you sow, so shall ye reap”

During the 1990s, the Clinton administration cut U.S. ground and tactical air forces by almost half. Maritime forces were reduced very little. That force structure, I would suggest, left the United States firmly in control of the porpoises and the whales while leaving the land to the tyrants in the Balkans.
 Timidity, diffidence, and dilly-dallying during Yugoslavia’s disintegration marked Washington’s reaction to spreading instability in Southeastern Europe. By bombing Serbia and Kosovo for seventy-three days, President Bill Clinton damaged the U.S. image in much of Europe and elsewhere, and delayed a decisive toppling of the corrupt, anti-Liberal political regimes in both places—an outcome that today, nearly a decade later, still has not been reversed. Had President Clinton instead launched a ground invasion with several armored brigades advancing from Hungary to envelope Belgrade, he could have destroyed the Milosevic regime in a week or ten days with few casualties. (The German army took the same approach in 1940, capturing Belgrade in a week while sustaining less than a dozen casualties.) A direct occupation, predominately with U.S. forces but also jointly with NATO countries, could have administered and governed directly, re-established property rights and effective courts, and raised a new generation of political elites genuinely committed to Liberal values.

presidents yeswedid

In spite of President Clinton’s feckless use of American power in the Balkans, his administration eventually yielded to domestic lobby pressures and accepted three new members into NATO in 1999. In this way, NATO’s enlargement preempted ethnic conflict in several other former Warsaw Pact states by holding out hope that they too could someday join the alliance.

Failure to gain UN Security Council approval for the invasion of Iraq ensured that the war’s financial costs, not to mention the loss of life and moral standing in world opinion, would be enormous and that the quality of the coalition members that helped prosecute the war would be poor. For example, whereas the 1991 coalition against Saddam Hussein had French troops, the 2003 coalition contained Ukrainian, Polish, and Honduran troops, plus even a few from Mongolia! Meanwhile, the total costs of the war rise everyday, well above $300 billion, and other countries are not queuing up to share this financial burden with the American taxpayer. The presidentmay have delighted many American voters by asserting U.S. sovereignty against the will of our allies in the UN Security Council (behavior we normally would expect of a French government but not of the government that built the post-WW II international order), but they will not be delighted with the impact his policies will have on their wallets for years to come. More than anything else, the Iraq war is a spectacular example of how to squander American hegemony—fiscally, militarily, politically, and morally—and it will likely go down as the greatest strategic mistake in American history.

Whither American Hegemony?


Can we still save the American empire and preserve American hegemony? Or is it too late? I believe that America’s global, Liberal regime can be saved, but only provided that we act soon. The first step must be withdrawal from Iraq.


Ironically, that invasion was never in American interests; rather, it advanced (1) Iranians’ interests by avenging Hussein’s invasion of their country, and (2) al Qaeda’s interests by opening Iraq up to its cadres where they are now killing both Americans and Iraqis in growing numbers, and taking their newly gained skills to other countries. All the debate today over the tactical mistakes we have made in Iraq is simply beside the point, because all of the unhappy consequences were destined to occur once the invasion began.

intel on decline of america 2 51hOW1mqi1L

Most worrisome, however, is the way the Iraq war has paralyzed the United States strategically. The precondition for regaining diplomatic and military mobility is withdrawal, no matter what kind of mess is left behind. Yes, the United States will bear the blame for the mess it leaves, but it cannot avoid the consequences of its mistakes by “staying the course.” In fact, each day that we remain on that course only increases the costs (in blood, money, prestige, loss of diplomatic flexibility) and makes the eventual defeat larger. Only after the United States withdraws from Iraq can it possibly rally sufficient international support to prevent the damage it has unleashed from spreading beyond the region. Only after the United States withdraws will the prospects of bringing some order to the region grow. It cannot, however, achieve a lasting regional order unless it alters or abandons at least five of its present policies that have become so perverse, they now are generating the very things they were meant to prevent.

Nonproliferation Policy

The first perverse policy is our stance on nuclear nonproliferation. Although our nonproliferation policy was meant to maintain regional stability, it actually has accelerated proliferation and created instability. Given America’s recent record on nonproliferation in South Asia, the lesson that Iran and others must draw is that if they acquire nuclear weapons, Washington will embrace them, as it has India and Pakistan. Moreover, because the United States permitted Israel to proliferate some years back, this adds to the incentives for all Arab states to proliferate as well.

South Asia and the Middle East are not the only regions where our nonproliferation policy has generated negative externalities. America’s nonproliferation policy in Northeast Asia has worsened our relations with South Korea to the point of pushing Seoul toward the Chinese security orbit. At the same time, it has allowed North Korea to make a joke of U.S. diplomacy in the region and to increase China’s influence.

These trends open the path to a unified Korea without U.S. troops and with nuclear weapons—a sure formula for prompting Japanese acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The War on Terrorism

terrorist no 1
The second perverse policy is the so called “Global War on Terrorism.” As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely make the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of “sustained hysteria” over potential terrorist attacks, order the removal of most of the new safety barriers in Washington and elsewhere, treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence, and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.

TERROR 5 fearmongering_mcain (1)

Promoting Democracy

The third perverse policy, spreading democracy, is a very bad practice.
 It is a bad practice precisely because it runs contrary to the key source of American power and success, i.e., promoting Liberal institutions. Instead of pushing democracy, we should be trying to spread constitutional order. The reason is simple: if democracy is implemented before a constitution is truly accepted, it almost certainly will devolve into an illiberal regime that allows varying degrees of tyranny over minorities. It clearly makes sense to support individual rights and liberties everywhere, but it is wrong-headed to assume that democratic voting procedures—easy to implement—will assure such liberties.

Military Redeployment

USS Ronald Reagan

The fourth misguided policy is the Defense Department’s military redeployment plans. This policy is hollowing out NATO long before new members in Eastern Europe have achieved constitutional breakthroughs and transformed their militaries. Europe may create its own unified military over time, but the European Union is nowhere near that goal today. NATO, therefore, not only remains critical for Europe’s internal and external security, but NATO’s influence and political capacity is directly proportional to the size of U.S. forces deployed on the continent.

Energy Policy


What "Liberation" and "Regime Change" under Imperialism are really about

What “Liberation” and “Regime Change” under Imperialism are really about

Nutritional Imperialism: "Big-Mac-ing the World"

Nutritional Imperialism: “Big-Mac-ing the World”


Finally, the U.S. energy policy—by which I mean essentially, NO energy policy—ensures more shocks ahead while funneling trillions of dollars into the hands of those in the Middle East and Southwest Asia who may not wish us well. A serious energy policy would include putting several dollars tax on every gallon of motor fuel. The resulting revenue could then be channeled into a crash program similar to the Manhattan Project, designed to discover and perfect other kinds of energy to power motor transport. 

These are not ordinary times. Minor modifications in our national security strategy and our energy and economic policies are not the solution; they will merely perpetuate the present erosion of American hegemony. In our present predicament, we desperately need leadership that can fundamentally redirect U.S. foreign policy and strategy, not simply fine tune it.


Some may consider the points outlined above to be alarmist. They are not. Although my aim is to draw attention to serious issues in time for us to avoid calamity, I do not believe that I exaggerate the dangers. My comments have been rather sweeping, but they are focused on two fundamental issues—the unique nature and sources of American power, and what that means for how it can be used constructively in the world.


During the Clinton administration, foreign policies began to emerge that reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of American power. During the Bush administration, this trend has continued, albeit in a different direction, becoming so exaggerated that it endangers the very stability of the Western international order. If it continues for several more years, America’s“inadvertent” empire will pitch into irreversible decline. Thankfully, however, the restorative capacities of Liberal institutions are strong. Thus the direction of our tragic drift can still be turned around, but that possibility will not remain indefinitely. To put it colloquially, “Time is a wasting.”


Martys’ Day: State Terrorism Continues in Kashmir

By Sajjad Shaukat

Youme Shuhada-e-Kashmir (Martyrs’ Day) is observed on July 13 every year on both sides of the Line of Control and all over the world by the Kashmiris to pay homage to 22 Kashmiris who were martyred in 1931 to free Kashmir from the brutalities of despotic Dogra rulers. The day is reminder of Indian state terrorism which still continues in order to crush the Kashmiri struggle against its illegal occupation.

However, the history of Dogra rule (1846-1947) in Kashmir is replete with tyrannous treatment, meted out to the Kashmiri Muslims by Dogra forces. Under the Dogra rule, they were leading so miserable life that it was difficult to differentiate them from beasts. Slave labour, heavy taxes, capital punishment for cow slaughter, and living under constant terror was order of the day.

In this regard, Yousaf Saraf in his book, ‘Kashmiris Fight for Freedom’ calls it “free forced labour” and “instead of donkeys and horses, Kashmiri Muslims were used for transportation of goods across the far-flung areas.”

Atrocities of the Dogra regime could also be judged from the book of Sir Walter Lawrence, ‘The India We Served’. While describing the pathetic picture of the Kashmiris, he writes, “army was employed in forcing the villagers to plough and sow, and worse still, the soldiers came at harvest time and when the share of the state had been seized” and “there was very little grain to tide the unfortunate peasants over the cruel winter.”

On April 19, 1931, the ban of Eid Khutba ignited widespread demonstrations in the Jummu city for a number of days. It was followed by desecration of the Holy Quran at the hands of Dogra forces, which resulted into outrage among the Muslims throughout the state. In Srinagar, people gathered in Jamia Masjid to denounce this blasphemy. One such get-together was held in Khankah-e-Muella Srinagar, which was addressed by prominent Kashmiris. When the meeting was concluded, a youth, Abdul Qadeer, pointing his finger to the Maharaja’s palace, raised slogans “destroy its every brick.” With the accusation of sedition, he was arrested forthwith. Abdul Qadir was to be tried in the court but due to large public resentment, the court was shifted to Central Jail Srinagar.

On July 12, 1931, in response to the shifting of court, intense public protests were held throughout the city. The next day, on July 13, 1931, thousands of people thronged the Central Jail Srinagar to witness the in-camera trial of Abdul Qadeer. As the time for obligatory prayer approached, a young Kashmiri stood for Azan. The Dogra Governor, Ray Zada Tartilok Chand ordered soldiers to open fire at him. When he got martyred, another young man took his place and started Azan. He was also shot dead. In this way, 22 Kashmiris embraced martyrdom in their efforts to complete the Azan.
The people carried the dead and paraded through the streets of Srinagar, chanting slogans against Dogra brutalities. Complete strike was observed in the city, which was followed by weeklong mourning. This incident shook the whole state and the traffic from Srinagar to Rawalpindi and Srinagar to Jammu came to halt from July 13 to 26, 1931. The 22 martyrs are buried in Martyrs’ Graveyard at Khawaja Bazar, Srinagar.

However, instead of granting the people, their genuine right of sefl-determination and holding plebiscite in the controlled territories of Kashmir in accordance with the UN resolutions, various forms of state terrorism have become part of a deliberate campaign by the Indian army and paramilitary forces against the innocent Muslim Kashmiris, especially since 1989. It has been manifested in brutal tactics such as crackdowns, curfews, illegal detentions, massacre, targeted killings, sieges, burning the houses, torture, disappearances, rape, breaking the legs, molestation of Muslim women and killing of persons through fake encounter.

According to a report on human rights violations in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, from January 1989 to December 2012, there have been deaths of 93,274 innocent Kashmiris, 6,969 custodial killings, 117,345 arrests and 105,861 destructions of houses. Indian brutal security forces have orphaned over 107, 351 children, widowed 22,728 women and gang raped 9,920 women. From January 1, 2013 to June 15, 2013, these atrocities, extrajudicial killings further increased, as the report disclosed.

Besides Human Rights Watch, in its various reports, Amnesty International has also pointed out grave human rights violations in the Indian controlled Kashmir, indicating, “The Muslim majority population in the Kashmir Valley suffers from the repressive tactics of the security forces. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act and Public Safety Act, security forces personnel have extraordinary powers to shoot suspected persons.”

In this respect, European Union passed a resolution on May 11, 2011 about human rights abuses committed by Indian forces in the Indian held Kashmir.

It is of particular attention that in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in 55 villages across the northern regions of Baramulla, Bandipore and Handwara. Then researchers and other groups reported finding thousands of single and mass graves without markers. In this regard, in the last few years, rights groups discovered nearly 3,000 unnamed graves in the various districts of Kashmir.

In this respect, in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) officially acknowledged in its report that innocent civilians killed in the two-decade conflict have been buried in unmarked graves. The report indicated 2,156 unidentified bodies which were found in mass graves in various regions of the Indian-held Kashmir. Notably, foreign sources and human rights organisations have revealed that unnamed graves include those innocent persons, killed by the Indian military and paramilitary troops in the fake encounters including those who were tortured to death by the Indian secret agency RAW.

In its recent report China’s leading News Agency Xinhua has unearthed more gruesome details on world-stunning unmarked graves in Poonch of the Indian occupied Kashmir.  The report revealed the statement of Sofi Aziz Joo, caretaker of a graveyard as saying, “Police and Army used to bring those bodies and direct me to bury them. The bodies were usually bullet-ridden, mutilated, faces disfigured and sometimes without limbs and heads.”

While, Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) and rights groups have pointed out that more than 10,000 people have disappeared, accusing government forces of staging fake gun battles to cover up killings. They also revealed that suspected persons had been arrested and were murdered through arbitrary executions, and then buried in unmarked graves.

It seems that non-condemnation of these Indian massive human rights violations and non-interference for the seettlement of this issue by the so-called civilised international community, especially the US have further encouraged New Delhi to keep on going with its state terrorism on the armless Kashmiri masses. Ignorence of the issue by them involves the risk of nuclear war between Pakistan and India.

Indian authorities are not willing to talk with Kashmiri people on political grounds. New Delhi has reached to a conclusion that only bullet is the right way of dealing with Kashmiris, demanding their right of self-determination. Surprisingly, Indian successive governments are trying to ignore the dynamics of the freedom movement of Kashmiris for the sake of their alien rule.

It is notable that dialogue between India and Pakistan took place on a number of occasions, but produced no outcome, prolonging the agony of the subjugated people of the occupied Kashmir due to Indian intransigence.

Nevertheless, observance of Kashmiris’ freedom struggle during the Martyrs’ Day every year is reaffirmation of the fact that Kashmiris will continue to fight against Indian illicit occupation. In this context, Youme Shuhada-e-Kashmir is an ideal day for Kashmiris to seek inspiration to take their war of liberation to its logical end. At this time of distress, the people of Pakistan’s side are sharing the grief of Kashmiri freedom lovers. Pakistan also observes Youme Shudaha-e-Kashmir on July 13, launching a protest against the oppressive polices of Indian occupation, which have continued against the hapless Kashmiris.

Nonetheless, on July 13, all over the world, Kashmiris renew their pledge to continue the ongoing war of liberation for the accomplishment of their right of self-determination and for the independence of Kashmir from the despotic Indian rulers who continue state terrorism in the Indian-controlled Kashmir.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Martys’ Day: State Terrorism Continues in Kashmir

Shoah’s pages