Archive | February 25th, 2016

Nazi militarism predicated on 9/11 deception

Israeli militarism predicated on 9/11 deception


Did Zionists engineer the 9/11 attacks to bring about a “war of civilizations” between the West and the Muslim world?

Israeli militarism predicated on 9/11 deception

By Brandon Martinez

No more than an hour after the World Trade Center Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, Israel’s leaders initiated a coordinated campaign to blame their enemies for the attacks.

Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister, appeared live in studio at the BBC on 9/11, wherein he described his desire for the United States and other major powers to lead a global campaign of annihilation against the Arab/Muslim world. “[T]his is the time to deploy a globally concerted effort led by the United States, UK, Europe and Russia, against all sources of terror,” the Israeli war criminal stated. Dubbing this campaign a “global war on terror,” Barak continued: “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror even if it takes certain pains from the routine activities of our normal society.” “Bin Laden sits in Afghanistan… Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea… these kinds of states should be treated as rogue states,” said Barak, in a call for the US to take pre-emptive actions against countries that Israel views as impediments to its domination of the Middle East.[1]

Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister on 9/11, duplicated Barak’s war cry against the Muslim world. “[The] war against terror is an international war,” Sharon said at a press conference in Israel shortly after the disaster, describing an impending global conflict as “a war of a coalition of the free world against all the terror groups and against whoever believes they can pose a threat to freedom.” The Israeli politician Shimon Peres forwarded an identical sentiment as his Likudnik compatriots. “The fight against terrorism,” Peres proclaimed, “is an international struggle of the free world against the forces of darkness who seek to destroy our liberty and our way of life.”[2]

Later on the day, Ehud Barak and the Israel-first champion Richard Perle appeared on a BBC program where they outlined what amounted to a Zionist war plan of quick, successive offensives against all of Israel’s enemies. Barak pointed fingers at Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as “rogue actors” that need to be dealt with. Richard Perle emphasized the need to deal with the “states that sponsor terrorism,” and not just disparate groups of armed rebels who reside in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.[3] The following day Benjamin Netanyahu added the Palestinian Authority to the list of enemies.[4]

Nine days after the attacks Netanyahu expanded his list of foes that would be prime targets in the Zionist-devised “war on terror.” At a speech before the US House of Representatives’ Government Reform Committee on September 20, Netanyahu suggested that US vengeance in the face of 9/11 terrorism should be visited upon “Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan.” Netanyahu also named “Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Hizbullah and others in Syrian-controlled Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the recently mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the Palestinian territories, and sundry other terror organizations based in such capitals as Damascus, Baghdad, and Khartoum” as legitimate targets. Netanyahu’s diatribe was no less than a declaration of war against the entire Arab/Muslim world with few exceptions.[5]

The revealing statements of these Zionist warmongers were consistent with a broader Israeli strategy outlined by Benjamin Netanyahu and his Zionist associates in the 1980s. In 1979 and 1984 Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders organized two conferences to discuss terrorism under the auspices of the Jonathan Institute. The purpose of the two events was to seduce Western military, intelligence and political figures to join Israel’s crusade against the Muslim world, deceptively disguising their imperialist agenda as a “war against terrorism.” The second conference in 1984 produced a book edited by Netanyahu entitled Terrorism: How the West Can Win. “The two conferences organized by the Jonathan Institute, in Jerusalem in July 1979 and in Washington, D.C., in June 1984, were major events and highly effective for Israeli and Western propaganda,” wrote Edward S. Herman and Gerry O’Sullivan in their book The “Terrorism” Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of Terror.[6]

It did not take long for Israeli leaders to inform us of how beneficial the 9/11 attacks were for Israel’s anti-Arab/Muslim agenda. On Sept. 12, 2001, the New York Timesquoted a jubilant Benjamin Netanyahu. In reference to the 9/11 attacks, Netanyahu said: “It’s very good. … Well it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel].” “[The September 11 attack will] strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror,” he said. The Israeli public, theNew York Times reported, “took cold comfort in concluding that Americans now share more of their fears.” The article further reported that Israel’s political and military leaders were content the attacks “would awaken the United States to the threat of global terrorism” and have the effect of lessening American government pressure on Israel, giving the regime in Tel Aviv a free hand to suppress the Palestinians.[7]

Netanyahu reiterated this sentiment in 2008 when he told an Israeli university audience that “We [Israel] are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” adding that the atrocity “swung American public opinion in our favor.”[8] Ariel Sharon and his inner circle of Likudniks and Mossadniks came to a similar conclusion, announcing that the 9/11 attacks were nothing less than a “Hanukkah miracle” of good fortune for Israel. “The Israeli political-security establishment is coming to the conclusion that the terror attacks on September 11 were a kind of ‘Hanukkah miracle’ for Israel, coming just as Israel was under increasing international pressure because of the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians,” reported Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. Aluf Benn, writing for Haaretz, further observed:

“Osama bin Laden’s September 11 attacks placed Israel firmly on the right side of the strategic map with the U.S., and put the Arab world at a disadvantage as it now faces its own difficult decisions about its future. That’s the impression left by the speeches given by Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and National Security Council chairman Maj. Gen. Uzi Dayan, at this week’s Herzliya conference on national security.”[9]

Ami Ayalon, a former chief of Israel’s internal security service Shin Bet, confirmed that Israel’s leadership was overjoyed. “Since September 11, our leaders have been euphoric,” Ayalon told France’s Le Monde newspaper. “With no more international pressures on Israel, they think, the way is open.”[10] An Israeli professor named Ehud Sprinzak told the UK’s Telegraph newspaper: “From the perspective of the Jews, [the September 11 attack] is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favour.”[11] Within hours of the event, pro-Israel analyst George Friedman, the director of Stratfor, announced that the “big winner” of the day was Israel. “The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel,” wrote Friedman on his website, speculating that “The United States is obviously going to launch a massive covert and overt war against the international radical Islamic movement that is assumed to be behind this attack.” Friedman explained that the tragedy would have the effect of aligning “U.S. and Israeli interests [and it will also make] the United States dependent on the Israelis.” Friedman concluded: “The Israeli leadership is feeling relief. Given that pressures for Israel to restrain operations against the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian groups will decline dramatically.”[12]

Surprisingly, Efraim Halevy, the director of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency on 9/11, also admitted that Israel benefitted exponentially from the attacks. In an interview on The Standard, a Canadian current affairs television program, Halevy was asked about the theories that Israel’s Mossad was involved in 9/11 for political gain. “Obviously Israel benefited, the Jewish people benefited [from 9/11],” Halevy capitulated. Predictably the Israeli spymaster denied any involvement, leading us to believe that 9/11 working out to Israel’s advantage is purely coincidental.[13]

Coincidentally, one day before 9/11 the Washington Times reported on a 68-page study released by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), which contained some telling revelations about Israeli conduct. The study was geared towards devising a plan to enforce a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord. Acknowledging Israel’s penchant for ruthlessness and deception, the paper’s authors described the Israeli Army as a “500-pound gorilla … well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank.” Israel is “known to disregard international law to accomplish mission” the authors added. In their assessment of the Mossad, the group of US Army strategists said the Israeli agency is a “wildcard” that is “ruthless and cunning” and has the “capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”[14]

Israel’s long history of false-flag terrorism includes events like the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, wherein Zionist terrorists from the Irgun militia (which later became the Likud Party) detonated bombs in the Jerusalem hotel to spur the British into relinquishing their control of Palestine. Ninety-one people died in the bombing. The Lavon Affair of 1954 saw Zionist terrorists explode firebombs in British and American-owned buildings in Egypt with the intention of having the attacks blamed on Muslims. Then there was the USS Liberty assault in 1967, where Israel deliberately attacked a US surveillance ship during the Six-Day War, killing 34 American servicemen. And those are just a few of the more well-known false-flag terror operations of the Jewish state against its perceived “allies.”

Did Israel pull off its grandest deception of all on 9/11? A clue into the whole matter was revealed by the Telegraph newspaper, which reported that in August of 2001 Israel’s Mossad warned the CIA that terror attacks on major US landmarks were imminent. The Mossad’s warning was unspecific as to where and how the attacks would occur, but related that a cell of 200 terrorists were present on American soil and were planning a major operation. The Israelis linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told their American counterparts there were “strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement.”[15]

Even the Bush administration admits that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, so Israel’s attempt to link Iraq to the plot in their dubious “warning” is telling. Immediately after 9/11, Israel and its neocon partisans in the US initiated an intense campaign of innuendo to connect Iraq, as well as Arabs and Muslims generally, to the attacks. Aman, Israel’s military intelligence service, quickly disseminated disinformation asserting Iraq was involved in 9/11.[16] Rafi Eitan, a veteran Israeli intelligence chief, duplicated Aman’s anti-Iraqi propaganda when he publicly proclaimed that Saddam Hussein was the “mastermind” of the attacks.[17] Jewish neocons in Washington also spread the Israeli-contrived myth of Iraqi involvement with a determined passion. This deceitful Zionist campaign of disinformation was so intensive that polls later showed a large percentage of the naive American public believed Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved in 9/11.

The Mossad’s August 2001 warning is evidence of manipulation on the part of the Israelis, considering that 200 suspicious individuals did happen to be in the United States in the months leading up 9/11, but they were not Arabs or Muslims. In December of 2001 Fox News aired a four part series detailing a “secretive and sprawling investigation” into Israeli espionage in the US. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron reported that 200 Israelis had been arrested shortly before and after 9/11 in connection with the inquiry into the attacks. Some of the Israeli suspects, reported Cameron, belonged to electronic surveillance intercept and explosive ordinance units in the Israeli military. In the first part of the video series Cameron said: “A highly placed investigator said there are ‘tie-ins.’ But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’”[18]

The first and only people arrested on the very day of September 11, 2001, were not Arabs or Muslims with links to Al Qaeda or Iraq, but were Israelis with ties to the Mossad. Five Israelis were witnessed video taping the plane impacts into the WTC. A witness named Maria saw three of the Israelis on top of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment in New Jersey. Minutes after the first plane hit the tower she saw them celebrating, laughing and shouting with joy and mockery, as well as taking pictures of themselves smiling with the burning towers in the backdrop. Alarmed by what she saw, Maria called the police who later pulled over the five Israelis and arrested them. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, informed the police: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”[19]

The Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, confirmed that two of the five Israelis were Mossad agents whose names appeared in a national intelligence database.[20] They worked for a New Jersey-based moving company called Urban Moving Systems whose Israeli owner, Dominik Suter, abruptly and suspiciously fled the US back to Israel days after 9/11, leaving his moving business in complete shambles.[21] Journalist Christopher Ketcham revealed that Urban Moving Systems was a front for Israeli intelligence.[22]

It is inconceivable that the five dancing Israelis didn’t know exactly what was going to happen on 9/11. Some reports suggested the Israelis had set up their cameras to film the attack prior to the first plane crash. The former CIA officer Robert Baer said they were in place to film before either plane hit the WTC. If that is so, then the Israelis must have had intimate prior knowledge of the time, place and nature of the attacks. It is indisputable that the five Israelis were indeed celebrating before the second plane hit the south tower. Most people thought the initial plane strike was just a terrible accident, but somehow the five Israelis knew it was a terrorist attack immediately.

While in custody the Israelis admitted they were happy because the attacks would benefit Israel. One of them reportedly said, “The United States will [now] take steps to stop terrorism in the world.” Another remarked: “Israel now has hope that the world will now understand us.”[23] How did they know the attacks would benefit Israel unless they also knew beforehand who would be blamed for them? How would they have known any of this unless Israel was directly involved in bringing about this event and having it blamed on the designated patsies? All of the Israeli suspects, including the five dancing Israelis, were eventually released back to Israel due to Zionist pressure from the highest levels of the White House and Department of Justice.

Much like the Zionist-led campaign of innuendo against Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks, the allegations of Osama bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 are likewise built upon an edifice of falsehood. Bin Laden’s name was continuously invoked by the talking heads of the mainstream media, but no evidence was proffered to support the notion that he planned or was in any way involved in the attacks. In 2006, the FBI admitted that the Bureau had no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11,” the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb told journalist Ed Haas.[24]

Former Pakistani spy chief Hamid Gul explained that the media’s obsession with blaming bin Laden was a pre-planned deception. In a September 2001 interview Gul told the Washington Times: “Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.” When asked who he believed sponsored the attacks, Gul replied: “Mossad and its accomplices.”[25]

Veteran CIA officer Milt Bearden echoed a similar sentiment, telling CBS’s Dan Rather: “This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States — more sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden.” “Now I would go so far as to say that this group who was responsible for [the attacks], if they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden out there they’d invent one because he’s a terrific diversion for the rest of the world,” Bearden said.[26]

Despite popular belief bin Laden did not “take credit” for the attacks – in fact he strongly denied any involvement. In a September 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, bin Laden said:

“… I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.”[27]

Bin Laden further articulated some important truths about Israeli and American imperialism. It is the United States and Israel, bin Laden argued, which are “perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam.” He theorized that the true perpetrators of 9/11 are those “who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.” He also spoke of the intrigues of US intelligence agencies who require big budgets and need enemies to sustain those budgets and exert their influence. It is that factor, in conjunction with Zionism, that are the likely masterminds behind 9/11 he said.

“Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States?” bin Laden asked. “That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.” He continued: “I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.” Bin Laden explained that the American system “is totally in [the] control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them.”[28]

The US invasion of Afghanistan, which was predicated on the unproven assertion that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda committed 9/11, was thus an illegitimate act of naked aggression. Further proof that the Bush regime had no evidence linking Al Qaeda to 9/11 was its refusal to provide the Taliban with the evidence. In October 2001, the Taliban offered the Bush regime a conditional agreement in which the Taliban would surrender bin Laden to a third party country if the US halted its bombing campaign against Afghanistan. All that the Taliban asked for was evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the crimes of 9/11 and upon receiving it they would immediately hand him over. The Bush regime angrily rejected the offer and continued its merciless offensive against the downtrodden country. “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know [bin Laden’s] guilty,” Bush said.[29]

Niaz Naik, a former top Pakistani diplomat, revealed that the US invasion of Afghanistan was pre-arranged. Naik told the BBC’s George Arney that US officials informed him of their war plans against Afghanistan months prior to the invasion. “The US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s [9/11] attacks,” he told BBC News.[30] Naik asserted that the objective of the US invasion was not to capture bin Laden but rather to eliminate the Taliban. He explained that the US would not drop its war plans against Afghanistan “even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.”[31]

NBC News confirmed Naik’s claims in a May 2002 report headlined “U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida: White House given plan days before Sept. 11.”[32] The report detailed the contents of a formal National Security Presidential Directive, which “amounted to a game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth.” The plan is said to have “dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan.” The security directive, reported NBC News, “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks.” The NBC report talked about the “striking parallels” between the Bush regime’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan after 9/11 and the one laid out in the pre-9/11 security directive: “[T]he security directive included efforts to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.” The NBC report concluded: “The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant […] because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.” Bush was supposed to sign off on this aggressive plan two days before 9/11, but it is unlikely public opinion would have supported such a scenario prior to the attacks.

The evidence presented herein is by no means comprehensive. It is but a small fraction of the available evidence showcasing direct Israeli participation, if not orchestration, of 9/11 to bring about a “war of civilizations” between the West and Islamic world. In September of 2000 the neoconservative group called the Project for the New American Century spoke of a “new pearl harbour” that was needed to facilitate their militarist war plans.[33] Shortly after 9/11, that same group — which was headed by Jewish neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan — called on President Bush to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq in order to protect Israel.[34] Regime change in Iraq was described as an “important Israeli strategic objective” in a 1996 Israeli strategy paper written by leading Jewish neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who all became high-ranking officials in the Bush administration in 2003,[35] leading the drive for a war against Iraq alongside the Israel-first champion Paul Wolfowitz.

The neoconservative movement, which is widely held to be responsible for hijacking the Bush administration and pushing America into the disastrous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, is at its core a Jewish-Zionist cabal. The movement was, since its inception, a largely Jewish affair led by Zionist inclinations. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman in an article for the Jewish Forward newspaper. “As a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”[36]

Not shy about their central role in shaping US foreign policy towards the Middle East, several prominent neocons boasted about their takeover of the Bush administration. In a BBC documentary titled “The War Party,” Richard Perle acknowledged that “the President of the United States on issue after issue has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives.”[37] “George Bush’s current foreign policy is basically a neoconservative foreign policy,” gloated PNAC founder William Kristol.[38] Meyrav Wurmser, the wife of neocon David Wurmser, admitted that the neocons are driven by Zionist ideology: “Yes, many of us [neocons] are Jewish… Most of us, all of us in fact, are pro-Israel.”[39] “The war in Iraq,” wrote Israeli journalist Ari Shavit in a 2003 article that appeared in Haaretz, “was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”[40]

Through deception and subterfuge, Israel and its agents in the US conspired to engineer an endless civilizational conflict between the West and the Arab/Muslim world, for the benefit of Zionism and its expansionist objectives. Corrupted Americans assisted this diabolical scheme and will forever bear the shame of aiding and abetting evil.

Copyright © 2014 Brandon Martinez

End Notes

[2] CNN transcript of the Sharon/Peres 9/11 press conference:

[4] “Netanyahu: Designate PA ‘enemy’,” The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 12, 2001.

[5] Transcript of Netanyahu’s speech before US House of Representatives’ Government Reform Committee on Sept. 20, 2001:

[7] James Bennet, “A DAY OF TERROR: THE ISRAELIS; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer,” New York Times, Sept. 12, 2001.

[8] “Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel,” Haaretz/Reuters, April 16, 2008.

[9] Aluf Benn, “Israel strives to import America’s war on terror,” Haaretz, Dec. 18, 2001. (Haaretz later changed the original wording of the text, removing the term “Hanukkah miracle” and replacing it with “granted Israel an advantage”)

[10] Sylvain Cypel, “An unconditional withdrawal from the territories is urgently needed,” Le Monde Dec. 22, 2001.

[12] George Friedman, “The Big Winner Today, Intended Or Not, Is The State Of Israel,” STRATFOR, Sept. 11, 2001.

[14] “U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study,” The Washington Times, Sept. 10, 2001.

[15] David Wastell and Philip Jacobson, “Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks,” The Telegraph, Sept. 15, 2001.

[16] Sniegoski, Steven. The Transparent Cabal, (2008). p. 146.

[17] Dennis Eisenberg, “Saddam link to attacks,” The Sunday Herald (Australia), Sept. 23, 2001.

[18] Fox News series on Israeli espionage ring connected with Sept. 11 attacks (Dec. 24, 2001):

[19] “The White Van Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?” ABC News 20/20, June 24, 2002.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Christopher Ketcham, “High-Fivers and Art Student Spies What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?” Counterpunch, March 7, 2007.

[23] FBI reports concerning the five dancing Israelis released through FOIA request:

[24] “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,’” Global Research, June 6, 2006.

[25] Arnaud de Borchgrave, “Arnaud de Borchgrave’s exclusive September 2001 interview with Hamid Gul,” The Washington Times, July 28, 2010.

[27] “Interview with Osama bin Laden. Denies his Involvement in 9/11,” Global Research, May 9, 2011.

[28] Ibid.

[29] “Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over,” The Guardian, Oct. 14, 2001.

[30] George Arney, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban’,” BBC News, Sept. 18, 2001.

[31] Ibid.

[32] “U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida White House given plan days before Sept. 11,” MSNBC/NBC News, May 16, 2002.

[33] “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” Project for the New American Century, Sept. 2000.

[35] “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm,” Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1996:

[36] Gal Beckerman, “The Neoconservative Persuasion Examining the Jewish roots of an intellectual movement,” The Forward, Jan. 6, 2006.

[37] “The War Party,” BBC:

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi militarism predicated on 9/11 deception

1967-2015: Nazi ongoing legacy of assaults on Al-Aqsa


Image result for Al-Aqsa PHOTO

By Adam Moro

Israeli violations against Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque have continued unabated since the city was occupied in 1967. According to Palestinian sources, however, the last two years have witnessed a noticeable uptick in both the number and scale of these violations.

The most serious assault on the mosque occurred in August of 1969, when Jewish-Australian Denis Michael Rohan set fire to the building, partially damaging it.

Until today, the Islamic Waqf in Jerusalem — which is linked to Jordan’s Ministry of Awqaf (religious endowments) and is responsible for managing Jerusalem’s Muslim sites — has continued to work on repairing the damage caused by that fire.

Attacks have not been limited to the mosque, but have also targeted worshipers. In April of 1982, an Israeli soldier indiscriminately opened fire on worshipers inside the mosque, killing two and wounding six.

And in October of 1990, Israeli police killed 21 Palestinians and injured another 150 after clashes erupted when Jewish extremists tried to place the foundation stone of a Jewish temple inside the mosque.

Since the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, Israel has carried out “archaeological” work in the vicinity of the mosque without disclosing the exact nature or details of these excavations.

Palestinian objections to the excavations reached a fever pitch in September of 1996, when the Israeli government opened a tunnel under Al-Aqsa’s western wall.

The move drew massive Palestinian opposition, sparking days of demonstrations in the Israeli-occupied territories, during which 63 Palestinians were killed and some 1,600 injured.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque was also central to the eruption of the second Palestinian Intifada (“uprising”) in September of 2000, when controversial Israeli politician Ariel Sharon — accompanied by hoards of security forces — provocatively entered the Al-Aqsa courtyard.

The resultant uprising, which went on until 2005, saw hundreds of Palestinians killed and thousands injured throughout the occupied territories.

Following Sharon’s fateful visit to the flashpoint site, the Islamic Waqf closed the mosque to non-Muslims until Israeli authorities reopened it from one side in August of 2003.

Since then, groups of extremist Jewish settlers have stormed the mosque compound with increasing frequency and in increasing numbers.

The provocative visits, say Palestinian sources, escalated dramatically in 2014 and 2015.

“There is no doubt that 2015 was the most difficult year — for the Al-Aqsa in particular and the Palestinian cause in general — due to the Israeli occupation’s intransigence and the excesses of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist right-wing government,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the mosque’s head imam, told Anadolu Agency.

According to the Islamic Waqf in Jerusalem, over the course of last year, more than 11,472 Israeli settlers have forced their way into the Al-Aqsa compound.

Waqf spokesman Firas al-Dibs told Anadolu Agency that September of 2015 saw a record 1,575 settlers enter the mosque compound — compared to less than a thousand settlers who had entered the site in previous months.

The uptick in settler intrusions that month coincided with the Jewish New Year holiday on Sept. 13, when extremist Jewish groups called on followers to converge on the mosque compound.

Palestinian Muslim worshipers, for their part, confronted the intruding settlers in many instances, prompting Israeli security forces to storm the compound with a view to protecting the settlers.

A number of Palestinians were injured in the subsequent melee, triggering yet another popular uprising in early October, which once again rocked the occupied territories.

That uprising, which some observers — including some Israeli officials — are calling a “third Palestinian intifada”, continues to this day.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that the “status quo” at Al-Aqsa would remain unchanged — i.e., non-Muslims would remain barred from performing religious activity inside the mosque compound.

Palestinian observers, however, are skeptical, suspecting that Israel secretly plans to divide the mosque between Muslims and Jews — a scenario that was openly discussed at an internal Israeli parliamentary session in August of 2014.

In the meantime, many Palestinian Muslim worshipers — known as “Murabiteen” — are maintaining a presence in the Al-Aqsa compound with the express purpose of confronting future incursions by Jewish settlers.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on 1967-2015: Nazi ongoing legacy of assaults on Al-Aqsa

65% of the Palestinians demand Traitor Ab-A$$ to quit


Member of PFLP’s Central Committee Abdul Aleem Da’na said polls, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Political Studies, show that the popularity of Mahmoud Ab-A$$  has decreased in favor of the Palestinian resistance. Da’na called Ab-A$$ to resign in order to end the internal Palestinian division.

65% of the Palestinians demand Ab-A$$ to quit his office. 67% of Palestinians call for turning the Palestinian intifada into a military uprising, Da’na added. Ab-A$$ has failed in dealing with the national and economic crises, Da’na confirmed, calling for the revival of the PLO.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on 65% of the Palestinians demand Traitor Ab-A$$ to quit

India’s Offensive-Defensive Doctrine


Image result for modi cartoon

By Sajjad Shaukat

Since the leader of the ruling party BJP Narendra Modi became Prime Minister of India, various

developments like unprecedented rise of Hindu extremism, persecution of minorities, forced

conversions of other religious minorities into Hindus, ban on beef and cow slaughter, inclusion

of Hindu religious books in curriculum, creation of war-like situation with Pakistan, unprovoked

firing at the Line of Control in Kashmir and Working Boundary across Pak-Indian border clearly

show that encouraged by the fundamentalist rulers, Hindu extremist outfits such as BJP, RSS

VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena including other similar parties have been promoting religious

and ethnic chauvinism in India by propagating ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) which

has become genesis of India’s offensive-defensive doctrine.

As part of its offensive-defensive doctrine, New Delhi is destabilizing Afghanistan—all regional

states, while its major focus has always been towards Pakistan, a policy of weakening Pakistan.

In this regard, double game is particularly part of India’s offensive-defensive doctrine.

In fact, Ajit Doval, the ex-spymaster who is now National Security Advisor of Indian Prime

Minister Modi is the real author and controller of India’s offensive-defensive doctrine.

It is notable that on January, 20, this year, at least 21 persons were killed at Bacha Khan

University in Khyber Pakhtunkha’s Charsadda town, when heavily-armed terrorists of the

banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) entered the university and opened fire on them.

Reliable sources disclosed that Indian consulate located in Jalalabad, Afghanistan played a key

role in targeting the Bacha Khan University. The operatives of the Indian secret agency, RAW in

connivance with Rahmatullah Nabil, the former director of Afghan intelligence agency, National

Directorate of Security (NDS) and the TTP chief Mullah Fazlullah planned this assault. Indian

consulate gave rupees 3 million to the Talban commander to arrange this brutal act at the

university. Ajit Doval directed this attack.

While, the Army Public School Peshawar—carnage incident resulted in killing of more than 140

children. It was also carried out by Ajit Doval’s stooges in connivance with the TTP, as he is

fond of manipulating radicalized proxies.

In order to implement Indian offensive-defensive doctrine, Ajit Doval also advise to arrange

various terror attacks and to shift the blame game to Pakistan. In this respect, on January 2, this

year, a terror attack at Indian Air Force Base in Pathankot was preplanned under his directions.

Without any investigation and evidence, since the first day of the incident, Indian media and top

civil and military officials claimed that the attackers had arrived from Pakistani Punjab’s

Bahawalpur district, and had links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and Pakistan’s primary intelligence

agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). But, despite Islamabad’s cooperation in the joint

investigation, New Delhi failed in providing any proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the

Pathankot incident. India orchestrated that drama to postpone secretary-level talks with Pakistan,

scheduled to be held in Islamabad on January 15, 2016.

Nevertheless, India is not serious in advancing Pak-India dialogue process, agreed upon between

the two countries during Indian Prime Minister Modi’s recent visit to Pakistan. Under the cover

of Pathankot episode, New Delhi wanted to postpone the secretary-level parleys as part of its

delaying tactics in settling various issues, especially the Kashmir dispute with Islamabad.

As mater of fact, like other past episodes, as part of Doval’s offensive-defensive doctrine, Indian

intelligence agencies, especially RAW have themselves arranged terror attacks at the Pathankot

airbase including some other terror incidents to fulfil a number of anti-Pakistan designs.

As regards the case of cross-border terrorism, India has shown ambivalent approach which can

be judged from some other developments. In this connection, on July 27, 2015, three gunmen

dressed in army uniforms killed at least seven people, including three civilians and four

policemen in the Indian district of Gurdaspur, Punjab. Without any investigation, Indian high

officials and media started accusing Pakistan, its banned militant outfits and intelligence

agencies for the Gurdaspur incident. Indian Police remarked that the attackers were from Indian-

held Kashmir, and some said that they were Sikh separatists, while Indian Punjab police chief

claimed that the three gunmen were Muslim, but as yet unidentified. Contradicting speculations,

India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh told parliament that the gunmen came from Pakistan.

Khalistan Movement Chief Manmohan Singh stated that the Gurdaspur incident is “a conspiracy

of Indian secret agency RAW to defame Pakistan.”

Notably, on December 31, 2014, prior to the US President Obama’s second visit to New Delhi,

Indian intelligence agencies orchestrated a boat drama to defame Pakistan, allegedly reporting

that a Pakistani fishing boat as a Pakistan-based outfit group Lashkar-e-Taiba was intercepted by

Indian Coast Guards, off the coast of Porebandar, Gujarat. And Indian Coast Guard crew set the

boat on fire and it exploded. The Indian government had claimed that it had foiled another 26/11-

type attack of Mumbai. But, its reality exposed Indian terrorism, when some Indian high officials

admitted that there was no such boat which came from Pakistan.

As regards Afghanistan, India is playing a double game in accordance with the offensive-

defensive doctrine of Ajit Doval. RAW has well-established its network in Afghanistan and is in

connivance with the TTP and Islamic State group (ISIS or Daesh). On January 13, 2015, at least

seven personal of the Afghan security forces died during the suicide attack which targeted the

Pakistani consulate in Jalalabad. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terror assault.

The attack, which coincided with efforts to restart the stalled peace process with Taliban

insurgents and ease diplomatic tensions between India and Pakistan, added a dangerous new

element to Afghanistan’s volatile security mix. In this context, delegates from Afghanistan,

Pakistan, China and the United States had met to try to resurrect efforts to end nearly 15 years of

bloodshed in Afghanistan. However, we need to know the real peace disruptors in Afghanistan.

In this respect, in the recent past, cordial relations were established between Pakistan and

Afghanistan when Afghan President Ghani had realized that Afghanistan and Pakistan were

facing similar challenges of terrorism and would combat this threat collectively.

While, it is misfortune that on direction of New Delhi and like the former regime of Afghan

President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s present rulers have also started accusing Pakistan of

cross-border terrorism. In this context, after hours of the Taliban captured Kunduz city, on

September 28, 2015, during his address to the UNO General Assembly, Afghanistan’s chief

executive Abdullah Abdullah blamed Islamabad for carrying out cross-border attacks and

Differences exist between chief executive Abdullah Abdullah and President Ashraf Ghani, as the

former wants cordial relations with New Delhi at the cost of Afghanistan and the latter prefers

Islamabad, because Pak-Afghan stability is interrelated.

It is mentionable that on December 10, President Ghani accepted the resignation of Rahmatullah

Nabil as director of the Afghan intelligence agency, NDS, after developing differences of the

spymaster with him over Ghani’s move to attend the regional conference in Islamabad.

And Prime Minister Sharif and President Ghani also showed their determination that their

countries would cooperate in fighting the threat of ISIS.

As the US is playing double game with Islamabad, because it is the only nuclear country in the

Islamic World, which irritates America and Israel. Hence, secret agents of American CIA, Israeli

Mossad and Indian RAW which are well-penetrated in ISIS are making efforts to weaken

Tibetan regions of China, Iran and especially Pakistan’s province of Balochistan by arranging the

subversive activities, promoting acrimonious sense of dissent, political volatility, sectarian

violence and arousing sentiments of separatism.

Here, it is of particular attention that the foreign-backed Baloch separatist leader, Manan Baloch,

the secretary general of the Baloch National Movement and number 2 of the Balochistan

Liberation Front was killed by the security forces on January 30, 2016. It is a great achievement,

as on the directions of his external handlers, Manan was criticizing the China-Pakistan Economic

Corridor (CPEC) and was provoking the Baloch people against this agreement.

Again, in case of Afghanistan, there are several groups of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and Taliban like the

TTP. Some of them are being used by secret agencies like CIA, Mossad and RAW to obtain the

collective and individual designs of their countries against Pakistan and Middle Eastern

countries. India and Israel which want to prolong the stay of the US-led NATO troops in

Afghanistan which have become the center of covert activities, are exploiting their dual policy,

especially of America against Pakistan, China and Iran. Particularly, terrorists of TTP which are

strategic assets of the CIA, RAW and Mossad have claimed responsibility for several terror

attacks inside Pakistan, including the recent ones in Balochistan, Karachi and in Afghanistan.

In fact, in collusion with Afghanistan’s NDS, particularly, RAW has set up its secret network in

Afghanistan, and is fully assisting cross-border incursions and terror-activities in various regions

of Pakistan through Baloch separatist elements and anti-Pakistan groups like Baluchistan

Liberation Army (BLA), Jundullah (God’s soldiers) and TTP.

It is an undeniable fact that Ajit Doval’s cronies are creating law and order problems in

Balochistan. Doval in his recent lecture clearly threatened that Islamabad will lose

Balochistan—a video is a clear confession by India that it is behind the separatists in the

province of Balochistan and has a huge network of its operatives against the state of Pakistan.

Particularly, Indian nexus with TTP leaders like Hakimullah Masood and Mulla Fazalullah has

been proved by the recent revelation of the TTP militant Latifullah Mahsood regarding the

incident of Army Public School Peshawar and exploitation of Baloch sub-nationalists. It has also

exposed Ajeet Doval’s offensive-defensive doctrine—anti-Pakistan statements of India’s BJP

leadership, while pointing out that New Delhi is the main spoiler of peace in Afghanistan, and is

still manipulating the militants of TTP, ISIS, ETIM etc. against Pakistan, China and Afghanistan.

It is misfortune that with the start of 2016, frequency of terrorist incidents has increased manifold

in Afghanistan, indicating the frustration of the spoiler (India), after her proxies were uprooted

from Pakistani soil. Moreover, Afghan people also feel wary of protracted proxy warfare, strife

and lawlessness in their country and are desirous for peace. But, India does not want it.

Besides, Indian media has created frenzy and volley of allegations against Pakistan. It is a true

reflection of Indian establishment and Hindu mindset which are intolerant to any improvement in

the bilateral relations between both neighboring countries.

Nonetheless, if not checked in time by the US-led western powers, India’s offensive-defensive

doctrine will destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan including the whole region, jeopardizing the

political and economic interests of America and NATO countries which demand stability and

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 IndiaComments Off on India’s Offensive-Defensive Doctrine

US Double Standard of Arms Supply in South Asia


Image result for US Double Standard CARTOON

By Sajjad Shaukat

International community is so focused on the double standard of the United States in Syria that it

has ignored America’s similar policy in South Asia, which also needs appropriate attention.

In this regard, the US expressed concern on February 12, this year over the security of Pakistan’s

tactical nuclear weapons. The statement followed the US announcement about its intention to sell

eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. At a State Department news briefing, Deputy Spokesman

Mark Toner said, “Tensions between India and Pakistan is equally worrying…we’re concerned

both about the security of those nuclear weapons, and that’s been a common refrain in our

discussions with Pakistan.”

Tone elaborated, “We believe it’s in our vital national security interests to support Pakistan in

carrying out its efforts to destroy these terrorist networks, and we believe it’s an important

partner in the region in achieving a stable and secure Afghanistan.”

Next day, India summoned the US envoy in New Delhi, Richard Verma and recorded protest

over the US announcement to sell eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan.

On February 17, 2016, rejecting Indian reaction to the F-16 deal with Pakistan, the Pentagon

Press Secretary Petro Cook stated, “We don’t think this deal should concern India in any way.

Pakistan is combating terrorism and its defence capability needs to be enhanced accordingly.”

In this context, during his briefing to the National Assembly, on January 19, last year, while

confirming anti-Pakistan lobbies in the US, Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Defence Khawaja

Asif had revealed, “Pakistan is trying to acquire eight F-16 fighter jets from the US on lease, but

Husain Haqqani, the former ambassador to the US is campaigning along with India to malign

Pakistan and to block delivery of F-16 fighter jets.”

On February 11, 2016, in a testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, US Defence

Intelligence Agency Director, Lt-Gen. Vincent Stewart (R) termed Pakistan’s counter-

insurgency operations along Pakistan’s western border [Across Pak-Afghan border] and

military operation Zarb-e-Azb and Karachi operation as successful in reducing violence in

Lt-Gen. Stewart explained, “Pakistan is fast improving its nuclear security and is aware of the

threats posed by extremists to its nuclear arsenal.” But at the same time, he remarked about the

increasing risks of an incident associated with the growing nuclear stockpile.

However, Lt. Lt-Gen. Vincent Stewart’s contradictory statement is part of US double standard

and ambivalent policy in South Asia. Overtly and covertly, US-led India, Israel and some

western countries keep on conducting propaganda against Pakistan, because it is the lonely

nuclear country in the Islamic World.

When terrorists had attacked on Pakistan’s Naval Airbase in Karachi on May 23, 2011, US-led

some western countries, including India and Israel exploited the situation through disinformation

about the security of Pak nukes. And another terrorists’ assault on Kamra Base was successfully

foiled by the personnel of Pakistan Air Force, but, a baseless report, published in the New York

Times had indicated that suspected militants attacked a major Pakistani Air Force base where

some of the country’s nuclear weapons were considered to be stored in the early hours of the

militants’ attack. The ex-US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta had also stated, “There is a danger

of nuclear weapons of Pakistan, falling into hands of terrorists.”

Particularly, in 2009 when the heavily-armed Taliban entered Swat, Dir and Buner, US high

officials and their media had exaggerated the ‘Talibinisation’ of the whole Pakistan, while

showing concerns about Pakistan’s atomic arms. In that regard, the then US Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton had warned that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of

terrorists. But, when Pakistan’s armed forces ejected the Taliban insurgents out of these areas by

breaking their backbone, she started appreciating the capabilities of Pakistan’s armed forces.

Undoubtedly, Pakistan’s nuclear assets are in safe hands—well-protected and are under tight

security arrangements, having the best command and control system. This fact has also been

recognized by some top officials of the US and some western countries.

It is notable that Indian past record proves various kinds of unprotected incidents, security lapses

in relation to various nuclear plants and the related-sensitive materials including events of

nuclear theft and smuggling.

In this respect, in the end of November, 2009, more than 90 Indian workers suffered radiation

due to contamination of drinking water at the Kaiga Atomic Power Station in Karnataka. On July

27, 1991, a similar event took place at the heavy water plant run by the Department of Atomic

Energy at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan. Nuclear radiation had affected and injured many labourers

In July 1998, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation seized eight kg. of nuclear material from

Arun, an engineer in Chennai, including two other engineers. It was reported that the uranium

was stolen from an atomic research center. On November 7, 2000, the International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA) indicated that Indian police had seized 57 pounds of uranium and

arrested two men for illicit trafficking of radioactive material. IAEA said that Indian civil nuclear

facilities were vulnerable to thefts. On January 26, 2003, CNN disclosed that Indian company,

NEC Engineers Private Ltd. shipped 10 consignments to Iraq, containing highly sensitive

equipment including titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps. Indian investigators acknowledged

that the company falsified customs documents to get its shipments out of India.

On June 12, 2004, Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation, an American company was fined US $

300,000 for exporting a nuclear component to the Bhaba Atomic Research Center in India. In

December 2005, United States imposed sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile goods

and chemical arms material to a Muslim country in violation of India’s commitment to prevent

proliferation. In the same year, Indian scientists, Dr. Surendar and Y. S. R. Prasad had been

blacklisted by the US due to their involvement in nuclear theft. In December, 2006, a container

packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility

Nevertheless, an alarming increase has been witnessed in the acquisition of arms and

ammunition on the part of India; and it is likely to spend around $250 bn. on acquisition of

weapons in next few years. The appetite is regional-specific with Pakistan being the prime target

including China. India has also developed considerable nuclear weaponry and delivery systems.

It is mentionable that in its report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

had disclosed on February 22, 2015 that India is the world’s largest recipient of arms—“India (14

percent of global arms imports), China (4.7 per cent), Australia (3.6 per cent) and Pakistan (3.3

New Delhi’s military is acquiring a slew of new equipments from combat aircraft to submarines

and artillery. It is currently finalising a deal with France’s Dassault Aviation to buy 126 Rafale

fighter jets in a contract worth an estimated $12 billion.

Although peace and brinksmanship cannot co-exist in the modern era, yet India seeks to

destabilize Asia through its aggressive designs.

While, as part of the double standard, America brushed aside the Indian poor record regarding

the safety of nuclear weapons and materials. And despite, Indian violations of various

international agreements and its refusal to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive

Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Additional Protocol with the IAEA, Washington signed a pact of

nuclear civil technology with New Delhi in 2008. During American President Barack Obama’s

visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India announced a breakthrough on the pact

which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

On November 2, 2010, US agreed to sell India the most expensive—the new F-35 fighter jets

including US F-16 and F-18 fighters, C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons

etc. Besides acquisition of arms and weapons from other western countries—especially Israel,

America is a potential military supplier to India. US also pressurized IAEA and the Nuclear

Suppliers Group to grant a waiver to New Delhi for obtaining civil nuclear trade on larger scale.

As a matter of fact, US wants New Delhi to assume anti-China role. Beijing is apprehensive

about the emerging threat, as the intent of President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra

Modi was quite clear, while mentioning about free sea lanes and air passages in the South China

In this connection, tension arose between India and China when Indian army erected a military

camp in Chumar Sector of Ladakh at the Line of Actual Control (LAC)-disputed border, situated

between the two countries. Similarly, Indian soldiers crossed over the Line of Control (LoC) in

Kashmir on January 6, 2012 and attacked a Pakistani check post, killing one Pakistani soldier.

Afterwards, Indian troops shot dead more Pakistani soldiers on the LoC.

It is noteworthy that under the Pak-China pretext, Indian ex-Army Chief, General Deepak

Kapoor disclosed on December 29, 2010 that the Indian army “is now revising its five-year old

doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.”

It is worth-mentioning that that after 9/11, both India and Israel which had openly jumped on

Bush’s anti-terrorism enterprise are acting upon a secret diplomacy, targeting Pakistan China and

Iran. It could be assessed from the interview of Israel’s ambassador to India, Mark Sofer,

published in the Indian weekly Outlook on February 18, 2008. Regarding India’s defense

arrangements with Tel Aviv, Sofer had surprisingly revealed, “We do have a defense relationship

with India, and “with all due respect, the secret part will remain a secret.” In fact, with the

support of Israel, New Delhi has been acquiring an element of strategic depth by setting up

logistical bases in the Indian Ocean for its navy.

Particularly, fast growing economic power of China coupled with her rising strategic relationship

with the Third World, and especially Pakistan—after signing of agreement, “China-Pakistan

Economic Corridor” which is, though for the benefit of South Asia, but, has irked the eyes of

Americans and Indians. Owing to jealousy, America desires to make India a major power to

counterbalance China in Asia—while, New Delhi has continued violations at the LoC and cross-

border terrorism in Pakistan.

For the purpose, by availing the phenomenon of lawlessness in Afghanistan, secret agencies like

American CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW have well-established their covert network in

that country, and as part of the double game, they are using the terrorists of the Islamic State

group (ISIS) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) for conducting various terror attacks in

Pakistan. These secret agencies are also making efforts to weaken Tibetan regions of China,

Pakistan’s province of Balochistan and Sistan-Balochistan of Iran by promoting acrimonious

sense of dissent and political volatility.

Notably, on July 20, 2011, while hinting towards Pak-China ties, the then US Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton urged India to be more assertive in Asia, saying that as American ally, the

country should play more of a leadership role. She explained, “India has the potential to

positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific.”

It is owing to the US dual policy that New Delhi openly follows threatening diplomacy in South

Asia. In this context, in May 1998 when India detonated five nuclear tests, it also compelled

Pakistan to follow the suit. The then Defense Minister George Fernandes had also declared

publicly that “China is India’s potential threat No. 1.” New Delhi which successfully tested

missile, Agni-111in May 2007, has extended its range to target all Chinese cities. Now, by

setting aside peace-offers of Beijing and Islamabad, New Delhi has entangled the latter in a

While, international community has been making strenuous efforts for world peace in wake of

global financial crisis and war against terrorism, but India has particularly initiated deadly

nuclear arms race in South Asia where people are already facing multiple problems of grave

nature. Majority of South Asian people are living below the poverty level, lacking basic facilities

like fresh food and clean water. Yielding to acute poverty, every day, some persons commit

Even, Indian civil society organizations, while complaining of excessive defense spending,

recently, pointed out that the government spends very little amount for the betterment of

people. Indian defense analyst Ravinder Pal Singh, while indicating New Delhi’s unending

defense expenditures at the cost of poverty-alleviation, calls it guns-versus-butter question.

Nonetheless, by ignoring regional problems and especially resolution of Indo-Pak issues,

particularly the Kashmir dispute which remains a nuclear flashpoint, Indian rulers state that they

do not have any belligerent policy. But, it becomes a big joke of the 21st century, reminding a

maxim, “armed to the teeth, but no enemy”, if we take cognizance of India’s increasing defense

purchases in wake of her aggressive designs. In fact, it is the fault of the US which openly

displays double standard of arms supply in South Asia


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
Courtesy Veterans Today

Posted in USAComments Off on US Double Standard of Arms Supply in South Asia

Ab-A$$ S S Attempt to Forcibly Fail Teachers

Palestinian Security Services Attempt to Forcibly Fail Teachers’ Sit-in and Establish Checkpoints throughout the West Bank

Image result for ABBAS CARTOON


The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) denounces the Palestinian government’s response towards the sit-in, which was organized by teachers at public schools on Tuesday, 23 February 2016, in front of the Council of Ministers in Ramallah.  The sit-in was in protest at the government’s not responding to their legitimate demands, and to call for the resignation of Ahmad Suhweil, a Secretary-General of the Palestinian Teachers Union. Moreover, PCHR calls upon the Palestinian government to respect the Union’s right to function freely according to the Palestinian Basic Law and all international human rights standards and to fulfill its obligations by implementing the 2013 agreement reached with the Union.

According to PCHR’s investigations in the West Bank, on Tuesday early morning, Palestinian Security Services established checkpoints at the entrances to the Palestinian cities in order to stop the public transportation buses and taxies, check the passengers’ ID Cards and order teachers to step out of to prevent them from reaching Ramallah and participating in the sit-in. Moreover, the Palestinian Security Services established similar checkpoints at the entrances to Ramallah and al-Bireh to deny teachers access to them.

In the south of the West Bank, the Palestinian Security Services established checkpoints at the entrances to Dura village, southwest of Hebron,  in Ras al-Joura area, at the northern entrance to Hebron; in Farsh al-Hawa area at the western entrance of the city and al-Nabi Yunis village, north of Hebron.  Furthermore, they established similar checkpoints in Beit Jala, Beit Sahour and al-‘Abedyia village, east of Bethlehem. Videos posted on social media showed how teachers, who were coming from Hebron, were forced to step out of a bus and prevent them from getting into another bus with an Israeli registration plate. A bus driver from Beit Kahel village, west of Hebron, said to a PCHR’s fieldworker that officers of the Preventive Security Services (PSS) and Palestinian police stopped him at a joint checkpoint established in Ras al-Joura area and forced the teachers to step out of his bus. During which, officers of the Road Safety Police confiscated the bus license.

In Ramallah and al-Bireh, the Palestinian Security Services established checkpoints at the entrances to Ramallah and al-Bireh, searched the vehicles and checked the passengers’ ID Cards. Moreover, they held the ID cards and licenses of whom they suspected to be teachers and bus drivers and prevented them from reaching Ramallah and participating in the sit-in. Many buses carrying teachers were denied access to where the sit-in was organized.

In Tulkarm on Monday, 23 February 2016, Palestinian security services phone called all buses companies and warned their owners to punish them if any bus in Ramallah reaches the Garages Compound.  At approximately 07:30, large force of Palestinian security officers deployed in the main Garages Compound near Shweikah Intersection to make sure that no buses from Tulkarm-Ramllah line were there.  The security officers also held the ID card and license of a driver working for al-Tamimi Buses Company because he did not obey the orders and carried passengers in the bus.  The security officers also checked the ID cards of all passengers, who headed to Ramallah via cars from the compound, aiming at denying teachers’ access to Ramallah.  Since the early morning, Palestinian security forces established a checkpoint on Nablus Road near Nour al-Shams refugee camp, east of the city and another one in the middle of the same street, east of ‘Anabta village.  The security officers stationed at both checkpoints stopped all public transportation vehicles and checked the passengers’ ID cards, causing traffic congestion.

In Jenin, Palestinian security officers established a checkpoint at the southern entrance to the city (Nablus-Jenin Road) near Jannat Park, where large forces of security officers deployed.  The Palestinian security officers revoked the ID card and license of a driver working for Qabatia Transport Company, with which a group of teachers contracted to take them to Ramallah, when the driver was near the Directorate of Education in al-Zahrah neighborhood.  Moreover, another bus from the same company was also stopped in the center of Jenin.

In Nablus, the Palestinian security services established a checkpoint on al-Quds Road leading to Ramallah and another one on al-Far’ah-Nablus Road, south of Tubas.  In Qalqilya, Palestinian security officers established checkpoints at the eastern entrance to Qalqilya; the northern entrance to ‘Azoun village and Intersection of Kafr Laqef village.  Moreover, two other checkpoints were established at the entrance to Salfit and the entrance to Bedia village, northwest of the city.  The security officers at the aforementioned checkpoints stopped vehicles and asked if there were teachers in them prevent them from reaching Ramallah.


PCHR calls upon the Palestinian government and law enforcement services to:

1.         Respect the rule of law and provisions of the amended Palestinian Basic Law, including the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 25 that ensures the union’s right to function freely and to strike within the limits of law;

2.         Respect its legal obligations resulting from acceding to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which guarantees the respect and protection of union’s right to function freely and to strike in conformity with the applicable law; and

3.         Implement the agreement reached in September 2013 between the government and teachers to improve the teachers’ economic and social conditions.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Ab-A$$ S S Attempt to Forcibly Fail Teachers

Why It’s Dangerous to Conflate Hamas and Daesh



Hamas Prime Minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh
By Belal Shobaki – Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network


While Israel’s efforts to link Palestinian resistance to its military occupation to global terrorism are not new, it has expanded its propaganda to address Arab as well as Western audiences. By so doing, it is clearly seeking to exploit the global aversion to movements that have drifted towards extremism and terrorism while claiming to represent Islam. “Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared at the United Nations in 2014. Yet better than anyone else, Netanyahu and the Israeli political establishment know that Hamas and Daesh are not related, as do those Arab regimes that also tar all Islamic movements with the same brush to serve their own ends. 1

Not only are Hamas and Daesh unrelated, they are bitter enemies, and Daesh has denounced Hamas as an apostate movement. Al-Shabaka Policy Analyst Belal Shobaki discusses the major ways in which Hamas differs from Daesh including its approach to jurisprudence; the position vis-a-vis the nature of the state; and relations with other religions. He makes the case that it is especially important for the Palestinian national movement to rebut the attempts to conflate Hamas with Daesh and points out the dangers of not doing so.

Serving Short-Term Political Gain

The conflation of Hamas with Daesh ignores reality on the ground. The political environment in Palestine is defined by the occupation, whereas the political environment in the Arab countries where Daesh emerged is defined by authoritarianism and repression as well as sectarian and religious conflicts, an ideal environment for the emergence of a radical ideology motivated by indiscriminate violence.

For Israel, however, the attempt to link the two may pay off regionally and internationally. Many Arabic media outlets have no qualms about referring to this terrorist organization as an “Islamic” State although it is anything but, while many Western media outlets embrace the Israeli conflation of Hamas and Daesh without scrutiny. Arab regimes are uninterested in defending the image of Hamas. Even the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) does not seem concerned with defending Hamas’s international image given the political division between Fatah and Hamas.

Hamas is considered part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is seen as a threat to authoritarian Arab regimes, particularly in the Arab Mashreq. Thus one way for Arab regimes to fight the Muslim Brotherhood is by claiming it shares common ground or is even synonymous with Daesh, as claimed by the Egyptian regime, and then using this as a justification for excluding the Muslim Brotherhood from participating in political life.

The rapid developments of the past five years in Egypt, the country that provides the only outlet for the Palestinian Gaza Strip, has pushed Hamas into its informal tunnels economy. The official Egyptian stance after Abdel Fattah Sisi’s coup against elected president Mohammad Morsi became tougher against the Gaza Strip, with claims that Hamas was cooperating with Jihadist groups in the Sinai, the same narrative promoted by Israel and its media. However, this narrative is flawed. It is too risky for Hamas to maintain a close relationship with Sinai jihadists, on the one hand, while cracking down on individuals embracing the same ideology in Gaza, on the other. Any links Hamas has established with those groups is limited to securing the needs of the enclave besieged by Israel and Egypt. This interaction is not motivated by a shared ideological identity or shared enmity towards the Egyptian regime. Indeed, Hamas has been eager to keep communication lines open with the Egyptian regime even when accusations conflating Hamas with Sinai’s Salafi Jihadi groups were made in the media. Hamas has also repeatedly said that it is keen on rebuilding the relationship with Egypt in order to ensure the legal flow of goods, services and individuals into Gaza.

It is important to refute this narrative concerning one of the largest Palestinian political movements: Excluding moderate Islamists from political life carries the danger of pushing Palestinian society towards radicalism, in which case both Fatah and Hamas will find themselves fighting takfiri groups. The ensuing discussion will demonstrate the real differences between Hamas and Daesh as well as the very real enmity between them.

Differences in Doctrine

Hamas positions itself as a centrist Islamic movement and an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood, with a rational jurisprudential authority, whereas Daesh adopts a text-based approach that deals with Islamic texts in isolation from their historical context and refuses to interpret them in line with current developments. Hence, for Daesh and other takfiri groups in general, movements like Hamas are secular and un-Islamic, since Hamas is primarily a resistance movement against the Israeli occupation and believes in a moderate Islamic authority. Moreover, Hamas does not take Islamic texts literally; it allows for ijtihad – interpretation and use of discretion. Some scholars have categorized these movements along a horizontal line with the right representing advocates of the text and the left representing advocates of reason. 2 Using this classification, the Muslim Brotherhood can be found a good way down the left of the line, while Daesh is on the far right.

Daesh characterizes Hamas and its discourse as deviant. Hamas for its part has condemned Daesh’s threats and considered these part of a smear campaign that extends beyond Palestine. When threats from Daesh and other takfiri groups materialized into action, Hamas no longer stopped at condemnations. Mahmoud al-Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader, declared “Daesh’s threats can be felt on the ground, and we are handling the situation from a security standpoint. Whoever commits a security offense shall be dealt with in accordance with the law, and whoever wants to debate intellectually shall be debated intellectually; we take this matter seriously”.

Hamas had in fact dealt decisively with a Daesh-like group. In August 2009, Abdul Latif Musa, leader of the “Jund Ansar Allah” (Soldiers of God’s Supporters) armed group, announced the creation of the Islamic Emirate in Gaza at the Ibn Taymiyyah Mosque. The group had previously been accused of destroying cafes and other venues in the Gaza Strip, pushing the Hamas government into a confrontation. Security forces, reinforced by the al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’ military wing), encircled the Ibn Taymiyyah Mosque and, when Musa’s group refused to surrender, Hamas ended the emirate project in its infancy by killing the members of the group.  Hamas was criticized for its use of violence but justified its actions by arguing that the violence that could have been perpetrated by such groups would have been much worse than that used to eradicate extremism in the Gaza Strip.

Daesh’s supporters in Gaza are far fewer than Hamas’s, mainly due to the fact that these groups have not historically contributed to resisting the occupation. Some polls suggest that 24% of Palestinians think positively of jihadist movements, but this percentage is exaggerated. When some Palestinians cheer for the jihadist groups’ hostility towards the US, it is not because they believe in these groups but rather because they see the US, with its infinite support for Israel, as being playing a destructive role.

Different Stances on Statehood

Hamas and Daesh differ in their view of the modern state, in both theory and practice. As noted above, Hamas has always allowed forijtihad or discretion, evolving its thoughts and opinions. It is thus unfair to assess Hamas’s stance on the civil state and democracy based on the early literature of the mother movement, the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas maintains that it has embraced new convictions in this regard and has come to fully accept democracy and the concept of the civil state. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood itself has evolved. Qatar-based Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the jurisprudential authority of the Muslim Brotherhood at large, has stated on multiple occasions, including in his book The State in Islam”, that the concept of the religious state does not exist in Islam. According to al-Qaradawi, Islam advocates for a civil state founded on respect for the people’s Islam-based opinion, and also founded on the principle of accountability and political pluralism. Although the discussion about the relationship between Islam and democracy predates the Muslim Brotherhood, it gained clarity after the 1950s, when numerous Islamic thinkers, including al-Qaradawi, the Tunisian leader and Ennahda co-founder Rached Ghannouchi and the Algerian philosopher Malek Bennabi, affirmed that Islam and democracy were not in contradiction with each other.

At the opposite end, the movement that Daesh represents rejects democracy in its entirety and considers it an apostate system of governance. Although some jihadist groups do not denounce Islamists who take part in the democratic process as apostates, they do consider their discretion flawed. Daesh views any expression of democracy such as elections as a manifestation of apostasy and any movement or individual taking part in elections as apostates. By contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood participated in elections from its earliest days, when its founder Hassan al-Banna decided to run in the Egyptian parliamentary elections that El-Wafd Party Government sought to hold in 1942. Although al-Banna could not run because the government rejected his candidacy, the Muslim Brotherhood has served in Arab parliaments and sometimes in the executive branch.

When Hamas decided not to participate in 1996 Palestinian Authority elections its position was based on a political and ideological stance towards the Oslo Accords. However, Hamas allowed its members to run in the elections as independents. When the circumstances changed and the 2005 Cairo Agreement became the governing framework for the PA elections instead of the Oslo Accords, Hamas decided to participate. It nominated many members in the movement and some independents to a Change and Reform list to run for the Legislative Council, winning the majority of votes.

By participating in the elections, Hamas has offered evidence that it is willing to function in a modern state and a democratic system. It has called for coalition governments inclusive of leftist and secular parties. Its government as well as its parliamentary list included women and its first government included Muslim and Christian ministers.

Daesh, on the other hand, has turned against all modern institutions in the areas under its control, refusing to recognize borders or national identity. It rules through chaotic and individual decisions. Although Daesh has been eager to use administrative terms derived from the Islamic tradition such as caliphate and shura (consultation), the essence of its governance contradicts the majority of unquestionable texts in the sources of Islamic legislation in many ways. For example, it does not abide by the conditions established in the Quran and sunna (the Prophet Mohammad’s teachings) to declare war or the protection of civilians and treatment of prisoners in wartime. Another example is its imposition of jizya (a tax that was levied on non-Muslim subjects), which is not supposed to be applied to the indigenous inhabitants even if they are non-Muslim. Moreover, it has attacked places of worship and assaulted the faithful in their homes, in clear violation of the Quran and sunna.

Daesh, to some extent, resembles hybrid regimes in the Third World that use modern and democratic vocabulary to describe their political process, even though they remain authoritarian in essence.

Polar Opposites in Treating the Other

The most significant difference between Hamas and Daesh is their position towards followers of other religions. During its formation, Hamas published a charter that used religious vocabulary to describe the conflict. Following severe criticism, Hamas effectively sidelined this Charter and no longer considers it an authoritative reference as some of its leaders have confirmed.

In his interview with The Jewish Daily Forward deputy head of the Hamas politburo Moussa Abu Marzouk confirmed that the Charter was marginal to the movement and not a source for its policies. He added that many members were talking about modifying it because several of Hamas’ present policies contradict it. Hamas’ politburo leaders abroad were not the only ones to disclaim the charter. Gaza-based Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad went even further in an interview with the Saudi Okaz newspaper in which he said the charter was subject to discussion and evaluation in opening up to the world. Sami Abu Zuhri, a young Hamas leader who was the movement’s spokesperson during the Second Intifada, urged in an interview with The Financial Times that focus be shifted away from the 1988 charter, and that Hamas be judged on the statements of its leaders.

Today, Hamas adopts the Quranic verse that reads: “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” This verse urges kindness and justice when dealing with people of other religions. Unlike Daesh, Hamas has applied this in practice. In addition to appointing Christian ministers to its cabinet, it has celebrated Christmas with Palestinian Christians by sending official delegations to visit during the feast. Meanwhile, Daesh has threatened the lives of those who celebrate Christmas across the world.

Some may argue that these steps are ways in which Hamas tries to beautify its authoritarian rule. However, there is little difference between Hamas’ rule and Fatah’s. The human rights violations committed by Gaza’s government cannot be considered an indication of Hamas’ resemblance to Daesh, but rather an indication of misgovernment. The political leadership of Hamas has spoken out against such practices on occasion, for example as those committed by the Ministry of the Interior under Fathi Hammad.

When some individuals were attacked by extremist groups in Gaza, Hamas and the government acted to ensure their safety and punish the aggressors, as in the case of British journalist Alan Johnston who was freed by Hamas from his radical captors and the killing of Italian solidarity activist Vittorio Arrigoni.

The movement’s position towards the Shiites is similar to that towards Christians. At a time when the Middle East is experiencing a media war between Shiites and Sunnis, Hamas refuses to denounce Shiites as apostates, and has interacted with them politically. When the relationship with Iran became strained during the Syrian crisis, the disagreement was political rather than doctrinal. Daesh, on the other hand, not only thinks of Shiites as apostates, but also all other Sunni groups that hold a different ideology, and believes they must be fought.

Even the two organizations’ treatment of the enemy differs. Hamas identifies the Israeli occupation as the enemy, while Daesh considers everyone else its enemy. Daesh has boasted of its numerous crimes against humanity in its treatment of its abductees and the civilians under its rule, including burning Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh alive. It has attempted to legitimize its inhumane conduct by distorting or misinterpreting religious texts. Hamas paid its condolences to al-Kasasbeh’s family and condemned Daesh’s actions. Contrast Daesh’s brutality with Hamas’ treatment of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit during his captivity, as even the Jerusalem Post reports.

Moving Forward in Relations with Hamas

Both Hamas and Daesh are on the list of terrorist organizations in many countries, including the member states of the European Union and the United States. However, the listing of Hamas is clearly politically motivated: Unlike Daesh, Hamas has neither targeted nor called for targeting any entity other than the Israeli occupation. Hamas was added to the list of terrorist organizations following the events of September 11, 2001, even though it had nothing to do with this terrorist attack. The political nature of the position against Hamas is underscored by the fact that the General Court of the European Union issued a decision on December 17, 2014, urging the removal of Hamas from the list of terrorist organizations. The Court argued that the order to list Hamas in 2003 was based on media reports rather than solid evidence.

In addition, many European and American dignitaries that are known for their stance against terrorist organizations worldwide have met with Hamas leaders on more than one occasion. Those include European parliamentarians and former US president Jimmy Carter, who met with Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza in 2009 and Khalid Meshaal in Cairo in 2012.

The bottom line is that Israel’s attempt to exploit a chaotic Middle East by implicating Hamas as a terrorist group linked with Daesh is baseless. Hamas is ideologically, intellectually, jurisprudentially and politically different from Daesh. Media outlets that adopt the Israeli narrative hurt their professionalism and credibility.

Palestinian movements must not allow the disagreement with Hamas to justify the accusations that harm the Palestinian cause internationally and create tensions locally. Hamas must also realize that the differences between them and Daesh do not mean that its rule of Gaza is free of abuses and human rights violations, and must therefore revisit its conduct and be more careful in its political discourse. It should move beyond the approach of having one discourse for local consumption and another for global consumption since every word uttered by any Hamas leader is marketed abroad as a message from Hamas to the world.

When the Fatah-led Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Arab regimes, especially in Egypt, do not oppose the efforts to link Hamas with Daesh – or, indeed, occasionally contribute to these efforts – they may “benefit” in the short-term by weakening Hamas as a political opponent. However, this carries the dangers of destabilizing Palestinian society in the medium and long-term. Excluding moderate Islamists could push Palestinian society towards radicalism, in which case both Fatah and Hamas will find themselves fighting takfiri groups.


  1. ISIS: The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Daesh is the Arabic acronym for ISIS. Some commentators use ISIL: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group itself began to use IS in 2014.
  2. Samir Suleiman, Islam, Demokratie und Moderene, Herzogenrath: Shaker Media, 2013, P 302. Tariq Ramadan, Muslimesin in Europa, Marburg:  Medienreferat, 2001, p15.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, GazaComments Off on Why It’s Dangerous to Conflate Hamas and Daesh

US marshals shoot innocent man in back ‘execution style’ during raid on wrong address

Image result for US ARMY CARTOON
By David Edwards 

A New Mexico attorney accused U.S. marshals this week of shooting a 23-year-old man in the back “execution style” when they arrived at the wrong address to make an arrest.

According to KOB, marshals were attempting to execute an arrest warrant for George Bond in Albuquerque on Saturday, but mistakenly opened fire on a home three trailers away from the suspect’s.

The family of 23-year-old Edgar Alvarado confirmed that he was fatally shot by agents.

“They said that they had made a mistake because he was out there at the wrong time. No such a mistake by killing somebody. There’s no accident,” Perla Alvarado, cousin of the victim, told KOB.

At a press conference on Monday, an attorney for the family accused federal agents of shooting Alvarado four times in the back, theAlbuquerque Journal reported.

“It’s almost inexplicable, but we have evidence … that Edgar was dragged from the house, after having been struck multiple times, taken outside, given commands to give up a weapon, as he’s gurgling and flailing his arms, and shot a fourth time,” attorney Robert Gorence said. “Almost what you would call ‘execution style.’”

According to Gorence, multiple eyewitnesses had said that Alvarado was shot in the back the fourth time when he was not able to respond to agents’ commands.

“When you do things in the middle of the night, and go to the wrong address, when you don’t know the individual’s name or have a picture of the person you are looking for, is it any surprise you have catastrophic and horrific outcomes?” Gorence noted. “At 3:30 in the morning, when you go to the wrong place in a lock-and-load mentality, it’s kind of easy to see what happens.”

The attorney said that he had sent a letter to Damon Martinez, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, asking for more details about the case to be released. He said that a federal tort claims notice would be filed by the end of the week.

“All we’re asking right now is to get answers,” Gorence insisted. “So far that has been completely stonewalled.”

New Mexico State Police are investigating the incident, and have only stated that U.S. marshals shot Alvarado during a “confrontation.”

Posted in USAComments Off on US marshals shoot innocent man in back ‘execution style’ during raid on wrong address

Beijing Sees Nothing Anti-Chinese in TPP Deal

Trans-pacific Partnership cartoons, Trans-pacific Partnership cartoon, funny, Trans-pacific Partnership picture, Trans-pacific Partnership pictures, Trans-pacific Partnership image, Trans-pacific Partnership images, Trans-pacific Partnership illustration, Trans-pacific Partnership illustrations

BEIJING — Beijing does not consider the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade deal to be directed against China, the country’s Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng said Tuesday.

“We do not think that the TPP deal is directed against China. We also do not think that the TPP deal and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership [RCEP] contradict each other. I think they supplement each other,” Gao said at a press conference.

According to the minister, the official text of the agreement has been completely translated into Chinese and some time is needed to analyze the deal.

Gao noted that China always positively regarded transparent regional free trade agreements.

In early February, the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam signed the TPP agreement. Under the TPP deal, a free trade zone was established between these 12 nations that constitute 40 percent of the world’s GDP. The agreement is to be ratified by every participant.

The US President Barack Obama administration had noted previously that the TPP would allow the United States to write the rules of global trade in the 21st century.

Posted in ChinaComments Off on Beijing Sees Nothing Anti-Chinese in TPP Deal

Docs Reveal That Turkish Officers Work With Daesh on Syrian Border


Despite Ankara’s declared commitment to fight Daesh, Turkey’s relations with the terrorist group are more complex. Documents recently released by the Cumhuriyet newspaper appear to show that Turkish officers on the border with Syria frequently communicated and worked with Daesh fighters.

The transcripts are said to be part of an ongoing investigation into several individuals and their ties to the terrorist group. They reportedly detail several phone conversations between unnamed Turkish officers and Mustafa Demir, a key Daesh operative in the border region.

“The transcripts and the documents in the investigation revealed that Demir received money… from smugglers at the border and cooperated with the officers as far as [border] crossings are concerned,” the Today’s Zaman newspaper quoted the daily as saying.

The documents also appear to indicate that Turkish officers met with Demir in the border region.

Demir is said to be linked to İlhami Balı, the 33-year-old Daesh leader, who is suspected of ordering the deadliest terrorist attack in Ankara’s history. The twin bombings last October left 102 people dead and more than 400 injured.

One of the transcripts translated into English by Today’s Zaman dates back to November 25, 2014. Demir asked an unnamed officer to arrange a meeting with a commander.

“Is it possible for you to arrange that I talk with the commander here, regarding the business here? What if we could establish a contact here as we helped you…” the Daesh fighter asked a Turkish officer. “Okay. If there are any needs [as far as your request is concerned], [tell them] to inform me here,” the officer responded.

In another conversation, a Turkish officer asked Demir to meet him and his comrades at a minefield. “We have stuff; come here from that side, the men are here… Come urgently; I’m in the mine [field] with a torch. Come running.”

“Okay, big brother, [I’m] coming,” Demir answered.The United States and other stakeholders have repeatedly urged Ankara to seal Turkey’s porous border with Syria, which Daesh, al-Nusra Front and other terrorist groups use to smuggle fighters, weapons and supplies in and out of Syria. The Turkish government has so far failed to deliver on the promise.

Access to unlimited supplies and recruits delivered to the Syrian battlefield through Turkey is largely seen as the key source of Daesh’s resilience and longevity. Ankara’s inability to secure the 60-mile border region has prompted many to question Erdogan’s true agenda with regard to the deadly Syrian conflict.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Docs Reveal That Turkish Officers Work With Daesh on Syrian Border

Shoah’s pages


February 2016
« Jan   Mar »