News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

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

Show posts Menu

Topics - almarh0m

#1
 

 
















 
Comment PolicyDIANA JOHNSTONE: For Washington, War Never Ends
March 16, 2022
Save
The formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the rearmament of Germany confirmed that for the United States, the war in Europe was not entirely over. It still isn't.


(Pixabay)

By Diana Johnstone
in Paris
Special to Consortium News



It goes on and on. The "war to end war" of 1914-1918 led to the war of 1939-1945, known as World War II. And that one has never ended either, mainly because for Washington, it was the Good War, the war that made The American Century: why not the American Millenium?

The conflict in Ukraine may be the spark that sets off what we already call World War III.

But this is not a new war. It is the same old war, an extension of the one we call World War II, which was not the same war for all those who took part.

The Russian war and the American war were very, very different.

Russia's World War II

For Russians, the war was an experience of massive suffering, grief and destruction. The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was utterly ruthless, propelled by a racist ideology of contempt for the Slavs and hatred of "Jewish Bolsheviks." An estimated 27 million died, about two thirds of them civilians. Despite overwhelming losses and suffering, the Red Army succeeded in turning the Nazi tide of conquest that had subdued most of Europe.

This gigantic struggle to drive the German invaders from their soil is known to Russians as the Great Patriotic War, nourishing a national pride that helped console the people for all they had been through. But whatever the pride in victory, the horrors of the war inspired a genuine desire for peace.

America's World War II

America's World War II (like World War I) happened somewhere else. That is a very big difference. The war enabled the United States to emerge as the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Americans were taught never to compromise, neither to prevent war ("Munich") nor to end one ("unconditional surrender" was the American way). Righteous intransigence was the fitting attitude of Good in its battle against Evil.

The war economy brought the U.S. out of the depression. Military Keynesianism emerged as the key to prosperity. The Military-Industrial-Complex was born. To continue providing Pentagon contracts to every congressional constituency and guaranteed profits to Wall Street investors, it needed a new enemy. The Communist scare – the very same scare that had contributed to creating fascism – did the trick.

The Cold War: World War II Continued

In short, after 1945, for Russia, World War II was over. For the United States, it was not. What we call the Cold War was its voluntary continuation by leaders in Washington. It was perpetuated by the theory that Russia's defensive "Iron Curtain" constituted a military threat to the rest of Europe.

At the end of the war, the main security concern of Stalin was to prevent such an invasion from ever happening again. Contrary to Western interpretations, Moscow's ongoing control of Eastern European countries it had occupied on its way to victory in Berlin was not inspired so much by communist ideology as by determination to create a buffer zone as an obstacle to repeated invasion from the West.

Stalin respected the Yalta lines between East and West and declined to support the life and death struggle of Greek communists. Moscow cautioned leaders of large Western European Communist Parties to eschew revolution and play by the rules of bourgeois democracy. The Soviet occupation could be brutal but was resolutely defensive. Soviet sponsorship of peace movements was perfectly genuine.

The formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the rearmament of Germany confirmed that for the United States, the war in Europe was not entirely over. The lackadaisical U.S. "de-Nazification" of its sector of occupied Germany was accompanied by an organized brain drain of Germans who could be useful to the United States in its rearmament and espionage (from Wernher von Braun to Reinhard Gehlen).


West Germany joined NATO in 1955, which led to the formation of the rival Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. (Bundesarchiv, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

America's Ideological Victory

Throughout the Cold War, the United States devoted its science and industry to building a gigantic arsenal of deadly weapons, which wreaked devastation without bringing U.S. victory in Korea or Vietnam. But military defeat did not cancel America's ideological victory.

The greatest triumph of American imperialism has been in spreading its self-justifying images and ideology, primarily in Europe. The dominance of the American entertainment industry has spread its particular blend of self-indulgence and moral dualism around the world, especially among youth. Hollywood convinced the West that World War II was won essentially by the U.S. forces and their allies in the Normandy invasion.

America sold itself as the final force for Good as well as the only fun place to live. Russians were drab and sinister.

In the Soviet Union itself, many people were not immune to the attractions of American self-glorification. Some apparently even thought that the Cold War was all a big misunderstanding, and that if we are very nice and friendly, the West will be nice and friendly too. Mikhail Gorbachev was susceptible to this optimism.

Former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock recounts that the desire to liberate Russia from the perceived burden of the Soviet Union was widespread within the Russian elite in the 1980s. It was the leadership rather than the masses who accomplished the self-destruction of the Soviet Union, leaving Russia as the successor state, with the nuclear weapons and U.N. veto of the U.S.S.R. under the alcohol-soaked presidency of Boris Yeltsin – and overwhelming U.S. influence during the 1990s.

The New NATO

Russia's modernization over the past three centuries has been marked by controversy between "Westernizers" – those who see Russia's progress in emulation of the more advanced West – and "Slavophiles," who consider that the nation's material backwardness is compensated by some sort of spiritual superiority, perhaps based in the simple democracy of the traditional village.

In Russia, Marxism was a Westernizing concept. But official Marxism did not erase admiration for the "capitalist" West and in particular for America. Gorbachev dreamed of "our common European home" living some sort of social democracy. In the 1990s, Russia asked only to be part of the West.

What happened next proved that the whole "communist scare" justifying the Cold War was false. A pretext. A fake designed to perpetuate military Keynesianism and America's special war to maintain its own economic and ideological hegemony.

There was no longer any Soviet Union. There was no more Soviet communism. There was no Soviet bloc, no Warsaw Pact. NATO had no more reason to exist.

But in 1999, NATO celebrated its 50th anniversary by bombing Yugoslavia and thereby transforming itself from a defensive to an aggressive military alliance. Yugoslavia had been non-aligned, belonging neither to NATO nor the Warsaw Pact. It threatened no other country. Without authorization from the Security Council or justification for self-defense, the NATO aggression violated international law.

At the very same time, in violation of unwritten but fervent diplomatic promises to Russian leaders, NATO welcomed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as new members. Five years later, in 2004, NATO took in Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia and the three Baltic Republics. Meanwhile, NATO members were being dragged into war in Afghanistan, the first and only "defense of a NATO member" – namely, the United States.

Understanding Putin – Or Not



Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin had been chosen by Yeltsin as his successor, partly no doubt because as a former KGB officer in East Germany he had some knowledge and understanding of the West. Putin pulled Russia out of the shambles caused by Yeltsin's acceptance of American-designed economic shock treatment.

Putin put a stop to the most egregious rip-offs, incurring the wrath of dispossessed oligarchs who used their troubles with the law to convince the West that they were victims of persecution (example: the ridiculous Magnitsky Act).

On Feb. 11, 2007, the Russian Westernizer Putin went to a center of Western power, the Munich Security Conference, and asked to be understood by the West. It is easy to understand, if one wants to. Putin challenged the "unipolar world" being imposed by the United States and emphasized Russia's desire to "interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all."

The reaction of the leading Western partners was indignation, rejection, and a 15-year media campaign portraying Putin as some sort of demonic creature.

Indeed, since that speech there have been no limits to Western media's insults directed at Putin and Russia. And in this scornful treatment we see the two versions of World War II. In 2014, world leaders gathered in Normandy to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings by U.S. and British forces.

In fact, that 1944 invasion ran into difficulties, even though German forces were mainly concentrated on the Eastern front, where they were losing the war to the Red Army. Moscow launched a special operation precisely to draw German forces away from the Normandy front. Even so, Allied progress could not beat the Red Army to Berlin.

However, thanks to Hollywood, many in the West consider D-Day to be the decisive operation of World War II. To honor the event, Vladimir Putin was there and so was German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Then, in the following year, world leaders were invited to a lavish victory parade held in Moscow celebrating the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. Leaders of the United States, Britain and Germany chose not to participate.

This was consistent with an endless series of Western gestures of disdain for Russia and its decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany (it destroyed 80 percent of the Wehrmacht.) On Sept. 19, 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on "the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe" which jointly accused the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany of unleashing World War II.

Vladimir Putin responded to this gratuitous affront in long article on "The Lessons of World War II" published in English in The National Interest on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of the war. Putin answered with a careful analysis of the causes of the war and its profound effect on the lives of the people trapped in the murderous 872-day Nazi siege of Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg), including his own parents whose two-year-old son was one of the 800,000 who perished.


The siege of Leningrad, 1942. (Av Boris Kudojarov/RIA Novosti arkiv. Lisens: CC BY SA 3.0)

Clearly, Putin was deeply offended by continual Western refusal to grasp the meaning of the war in Russia. "Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean," Putin wrote. "Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War mention all participants in the anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union."

And all this time, NATO continued to expand eastward, more and more openly targeting Russia in its massive war exercises on its land and sea borders.

The U.S. Seizure of Ukraine

The encirclement of Russia took a qualitative leap ahead with the 2014 seizure of Ukraine by the United States. Western media recounted this complex event as a popular uprising, but popular uprisings can be taken over by forces with their own aims, and this one was. The elected president Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown by violence a day after he had agreed to early elections in an accord with European leaders.

Billions of U.S. dollars and murderous shootings by extreme right militants enforced a regime change openly directed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland ("F___ the EU") producing a leadership in Kiev largely selected in Washington, and eager to join NATO.

By the end of the year, the government of "democratic Ukraine" was largely in the hands of U.S.-approved foreigners. The new minister of finance was a U.S. citizen of Ukrainian origin, Natalia Jaresko, who had worked for the State Department before going into private business. The minister of economy was a Lithuanian, Aïvaras Arbomavitchous, a former basketball champion. The ministry of health was taken by a former Georgian minister of health and labor, Sandro Kvitachvili.

Later, disgraced former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili was called in to take charge of the troubled port of Odessa. And Vice President Joe Biden was directly involved in reshuffling the Kiev cabinet as his son, Hunter Biden, was granted a profitable position with the Ukrainian gas company Barisma.

The vehemently anti-Russian thrust of this regime change aroused resistance in the southeastern parts of the country, largely inhabited by ethnic Russians. Eight days after more than 40 protesters were burned alive in Odessa, the provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk moved to secede in resistance to the coup.



The U.S.-installed regime in Kiev then launched a war against the provinces that continued for eight year, killing thousands of civilians.

And a referendum then returned Crimea to Russia. The peaceful return of Crimea was obviously vital to preserve Russia's main naval base at Sebastopol from threatened NATO takeover. And since the population of Crimea had never approved the peninsula's transfer to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, the return was accomplished by a democratic vote, without bloodshed. This was in stark contrast to the detachment of the province of Kosovo from Serbia, accomplished in 1999 by weeks of NATO bombing.

But to the United States and most of the West, what was a humanitarian action in Kosovo was an unforgivable aggression in Crimea.

The Oval Office Back Door to NATO

Russia kept warning that NATO enlargement must not encompass Ukraine. Western leaders vacillated between asserting Ukraine's "right" to join whatever alliance it chose and saying it would not happen right away. It was always possible that Ukraine's membership would be vetoed by a NATO member, perhaps France or even Germany.

But meanwhile, on Sept. 1, 2021, Ukraine was adopted by the White House as Washington's special geo-strategic pet. NATO membership was reduced to a belated formality. A Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership issued by the White House announced that "Ukraine's success is central to the global struggle between democracy and autocracy" – Washington's current self-justifying ideological dualism, replacing the Free World versus Communism.

It went on to spell out a permanent casus belli against Russia:

"In the 21st century, nations cannot be allowed to redraw borders by force. Russia violated this ground rule in Ukraine. Sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances. The United States stands with Ukraine and will continue to work to hold Russia accountable for its aggression. America's support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity is unwavering."

The Statement also clearly described Kiev's war against Donbass as a "Russian aggression." And it made this uncompromising assertion: "The United States does not and will never recognize Russia's purported annexation of Crimea..." (my emphasis). This is followed by promises to strengthen Ukraine's military capacities, clearly in view of recovery of Donbass and Crimea.

Since 2014, the United States and Britain have surreptitiously transformed Ukraine into a NATO auxiliary, psychologically and militarily turned against Russia. However this looks to us, to Russian leaders this looked increasingly like nothing other than a buildup for an all-out military assault on Russia, Operation Barbarossa all over again. Many of us who tried to "understand Putin" failed to foresee the Russian invasion for the simple reason that we did not believe it to be in the Russian interest. We still don't. But they saw the conflict as inevitable and chose the moment.

Ambiguous Echoes


Putin explaining his reasons for going to war. (AP screenshot from YouTube)

Putin justified Russia's February 2022 "operation" in Ukraine as necessary to stop genocide in Lugansk and Donetsk. This echoed the U.S.-promoted R2P, Responsibility to Protect doctrine, notably the U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, allegedly to prevent "genocide" in Kosovo. In reality, the situation, both legal and especially human, is vastly more dire in Donbass than it ever was in Kosovo. However, in the West, any attempt at comparison of Donbass with Kosovo is denounced as "false equivalence" or what-about-ism.

But the Kosovo war is much more than an analogy with the Russian invasion of Donbass: it is a cause.

Above all, the Kosovo war made it clear that NATO was no longer a defensive alliance. Rather it had become an offensive force, under U.S. command, that could authorize itself to bomb, invade or destroy any country it chose. The pretext could always be invented: a danger of genocide, a violation of human rights, a leader threatening to "kill his own people". Any dramatic lie would do. With NATO spreading its tentacles, nobody was safe. Libya provided a second example.

Putin's announced goal of "denazification" also might have been expected to ring a bell in the West. But if anything, it illustrates the fact that "Nazi" does not mean quite the same thing in East and West. In Western countries, Germany or the United States, "Nazi" has come to mean primarily anti-Semitic. Nazi racism applies to Jews, to Roma, perhaps to homosexuals.

But for the Ukrainian Nazis, racism applies to Russians. The racism of the Azov Battalion, which has been incorporated into Ukrainian security forces, armed and trained by the Americans and the British, echoes that of the Nazis: the Russians are a mixed race, partly "Asiatic" due to the Medieval Mongol conquest, whereas the Ukrainians are pure white Europeans.

Some of these fanatics proclaim that their mission is to destroy Russia. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, the United States supported Islamic fanatics, in Kosovo they supported gangsters. Who cares what they think if they fight on our side against the Slavs?


Conflicting War Aims

For Russian leaders, their military "operation" is intended to prevent the Western invasion they fear. They still want to negotiate Ukrainian neutrality. For the Americans, whose strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski boasted of having lured the Russians into the Afghanistan trap (giving them "their Vietnam"), this is a psychological victory in their endless war. The Western world is united as never before in hating Putin. Propaganda and censorship surpass even World War levels. The Russians surely want this "operation" to end soon, as it is costly to them in many ways. The Americans rejected any effort to prevent it, did everything to provoke it, and will extract whatever advantages they can from its continuation.

Today Volodymyr Zelensky implored the U.S. Congress to give Ukraine more military aid. The aid will keep the war going. Anthony Blinken told NPR that the United States is responding by "denying Russia the technology it needs to modernize its country, to modernize key industries: defense and aerospace, its high-tech sector, energy exploration."

The American war aim is not to spare Ukraine, but to ruin Russia. That takes time.

The danger is that the Russians won't be able to end this war, and the Americans will do all they can to keep it going.

Diana Johnstone was press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament from 1989 to 1996. In her latest book, Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher (Clarity Press, 2020), she recounts key episodes in the transformation of the German Green Party from a peace to a war party. Her other books include Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Pluto/Monthly Review) and in co-authorship with her father, Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning (Clarity Press). She can be reached at diana.johnstone@wanadoo.fr

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

#2
Salamun Alaikum

This is a genuine question and I am looking for answers from the Sahadah, Prayers, Fasting, Zakat and Hajj. Please provide reference from the Qur'an for your answer to every pillar.

Thank you & Salamun Alikum

#3
May peace be with you all

I have been a member of FM forum for more than ten years and had been visiting the forum to read before that. In that time, I have been looking forward to seeing a consensus from forum members and contributors and especially from leading intellectuals of this FM forum as to the meaning of salat. If salat really means "ritual prayers", then where is the clear evidence from Al Qur'an as to how we go about performing this ritual prayer(s) or a clear detailed instructions from Allah or from his messenger? The reason I am asking this question is, because there just isn't clear explanation as to what salat is, and if salat is indeed ritual prayer(s) as commonly believed by muslims at large, then where are the verses that explain how to do this ritual prayer(s) as instructed by Allah or his messenger? Perhaps, it is an oversight by Allah? These questions below have to be answered if we are truly following Allah's guidance and his law.

1. How do we start "The Ritual Prayer"?

2.What to read during this ritual prayer?

3.Do we perform this ritual prayer sitting down, standing up or lying down?

4.When is the time to perform this prayer?

5. What direction do we face while doing this ritual prayer?

I have asked most of the people I know that claim to follow Qur'an and serve God only about this Salat = ritual prayer(s) notion, but alas none of them have found the answers to the above questions. So, perhaps some of the learned and knowledgeable brothers and sisters could enlighten me and others in respect of this matter of salat is ritual prayer(s).

My sincere thanks

almarh0m
#4

Peace

I have been reading Pazuzu's posts on the topic "Road of The Patriarch" with interest and fascination with his assertion that all the prophets and messengers mentioned in the Qur'an were all in Arabia (They must be all Arabic speakers then). While I would like very much to agree with Pazuzu's theory, some verses in the Qur'an prevent me from taking all his claims seriously in his interesting posts.
Besides, any student of the Qur'an will know that Allah sent Thousands of Prophets and Messengers to every tribe and nation from amongst themselves and in their own languages.

If Pazuzu's theory is correct or true, then The Qur'an is no longer "The Criterion" for which to distinguish truth or falsehood, now let's see what the Qur'an say about Prophets/Messengers/Warners in respect of The Arabs.

1. Al Qur'an 32:3
   
[b3 Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance.
][/b]

أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ ۚ بَلْ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ لِتُنذِرَ قَوْمًا مَّا أَتَاهُم مِّن نَّذِيرٍ مِّن قَبْلِكَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَهْتَدُونَ

2. Al Qur'an 34:44

[b44 But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners. ][/b]

وَمَا آتَيْنَاهُم مِّن كُتُبٍ يَدْرُسُونَهَا ۖ وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمْ قَبْلَكَ مِن نَّذِيرٍ

3. Al Qur'an 36:6

لِتُنذِرَ قَوْمًا مَّا أُنذِرَ آبَاؤُهُمْ فَهُمْ غَافِلُونَ

In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless


After reading the above verses, can we still claim that all the prophets/messengers/warners all were in the Arabian Peninsula? Are all the stories in the Qur'an also took place in Arabia and Arabia is where the land "Blessed for The Worlds" located? Looking forward to enlightenment from any forum members and not necessarily from Pazuzu.

Peace

almarh0m

#5
Peace

I have been wondering if Allah=God or "The God" and we start worshipping Him instead of serving him for the benefit of fellow human and other creatures. If we equate Allah to God, doesn't that connote that Allah needs, to be worshipped? I am sure that any thinking person out there knows that a Creator of Everything does not need anything including worship. Let's see what Allah says about Himself and "SHIRK" in some verses.

إِنَّنِي أَنَا اللَّهُ لَا إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعْبُدْنِي وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِذِكْرِي

"'Innanī 'Anā Allāhu Lā 'Ilāha 'Illā 'Anā Fā`budnī Wa 'Aqimi Aş-Şalāata Lidhikrī.

""Verily! I am Allah! La ilaha illa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me, and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) for My Remembrance..

I thought that by worshipping Allah, we are treating Him as a God of a religion who constantly needs to be worship and I fear that by doing so, Allah will not forgive me and will not guide me to the truth,and we know from the Qur'an that Allah does not forgive shirk.

48   إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَ‌ٰلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا

"Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him (in worship), but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He wills; and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin".

Please help clarify this question.

Peace

almarh0m
#6
Peace

We are all familiar ( those of us who are former sunnies or other sects) with all the different timed salat and each name given to a particular 'Ritual Salat' such as : Salat al Fajr, Salat al Dhohor, Salat al Ashar, Salat al Maghreb and Salat al Ishaa. However, when it comes to "Salat al Wusta", I have yet to find a muslim person who can pinpoint which of the various ritual salat is salat al wusta. This is inspite of insistence of some scholars that "The Salat Al Wusta" is the most important of all salat, usually by citing 2:238.

So why amongst all the various known salat, not one can be identified specifically as the salat al wusta? Even the debatable salat al jum'ah or Friday-Prayer has an established place within the general muslim communities, which are extracted from 62:9.
So why is it 62:9 can find a place amongst the muslims ritual prayers and 2:238 cannot be accommodated the same way ?

Any comment and explanation is appreciated, thank you .

Peace

almarh0m

#7

         Reasons and False Pretexts: Why are They Making War on Libya?


Reasons and False Pretexts: Why are They Making War on Libya?

by Diana Johnstone
   
Global Research, March 27, 2011
Counterpunch - 2011-03-2


      

Reason Number One: Regime change.

This was announced as the real objective the moment French president Nicolas Sarkozy took the extraordinary step of recognizing the rebels in Benghazi as "the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people". This recognition was an extraordinary violation of all diplomatic practice and principles. It meant non-recognition of the existing Libyan government and its institutions, which, contrary to the magical notions surrounding the word "dictator", cannot be reduced to the personality of one strongman. A major European nation, France, swept aside all those institutions to proclaim that an obscure group of rebels in a traditionally rebellious part of Libya constituted the North African nation?s legitimate government.

Since factually this was clearly not true, it could only be the proclamation of an objective to be reached by war. The French announcement was equivalent to a declaration of war against Libya, a war to defeat Qaddafi and put the mysterious rebels in power in his place.

False Pretext Number One: "to protect civilians".

The falsity of this pretext is obvious, first of all, because the UN Resolution authorizing military action "to protect civilians" was drawn up by France ? whose objective was clearly regime change ? and its Western allies. Had the real concern of the UN Security Council been to "protect innocent lives", it would have, could have, should have sent a strong neutral observer mission to find out what was really happening in Libya. There was no proof of rebel claims that the Qaddafi regime was slaughtering civilians. Had there been visible proof of such atrocities, we can be sure that they would have been shown regularly on prime time television. We have seen no such proof. A UN fact-finding mission could have very rapidly set the record straight, and the Security Council could then have acted on the basis of factual information rather than of claims by rebels seeking international aid for their cause.

Instead, the Security Council, now little more than an instrument of Western powers, rushed ahead with sanctions, referral of alleged present or expected "crimes against humanity" to the International Criminal Court, and finally an authorization of a "no-fly zone" which Western powers were certain to interpret as a license to wage all-out war against Libya.

Once the United States and its leading NATO allies are authorized to "protect civilians", they do so with the instruments they have: air strikes; bombing and cruise missiles. Air strikes, bombing and cruise missiles are not designed to "protect civilians" but rather to destroy military targets, which inevitably leads to killing civilians. Aside from such "collateral damage", what right do we have to kill Libyan military personnel manning airports and other Libyan defense facilities? What have they done to us?

Reason Number Two: Because it?s easy.

With NATO forces bogged down in Afghanistan, certain alliance leaders (but not all of them) could think it would be a neat idea to grab a quick and easy victory in a nice little "humanitarian war". This, they can hope, could revive enthusiasm for military operations and increase the flagging popularity of politicians able to strut around as champions of "democracy" and destroyers of "dictators". Libya looks like an easy target. There you have a huge country, mostly desert, with only about six million inhabitants. The country?s defense installations are all located along the Mediterranean coast, within easy reach of NATO country fighter jets and US cruise missiles. Libyan armed forces are small, weak and untested. It looks like a pushover, not quite as easy as Grenada but no harder than Serbia. Sarkozy and company can hope to strut their victory strut in short order.

False Pretext Number Two: Arabs asked for this war.

On March 12, the Arab League meeting in Cairo announced that it backed a no-fly zone in Libya. This provided cover for the French-led semi-NATO operation. "We are responding to the demands of the Arab world", they could claim. But which Arab world? On the one hand, Sarkozy brazenly presented his crusade against Qaddafi as a continuation of the democratic uprisings in the Arab world against their autocratic leaders, while at the same time pretending to respond to the demand of? the most autocratic of those leaders, namely the Gulf State princes, themselves busily suppressing their own democratic uprisings. (It is not known exactly how the Arab League reached that decision, but Syria and Algeria voiced strong objections.)

The Western public was expected not to realize that those Arab leaders have their own reasons for hating Qaddafi, which have nothing to do with the reasons for hating him voiced in the West. Qaddafi has openly told them off to their faces, pointing to their betrayal of Palestine, their treachery, their hypocrisy. Last year, incidentally, former British MP George Galloway recounted how, in contrast to the Egyptian government?s obstruction of aid to Gaza, his aid caravan had had its humanitarian cargo doubled during a stopover in Libya. Qaddafi long ago turned his back on the Arab world, considering its leaders hopeless, and turned to Africa.

While the Arab League?s self-serving stance against Qaddafi was hailed in the West, little attention was paid to the African Union?s unanimous opposition to war against the Libyan leader. Qaddafi has invested huge amounts of oil revenues in sub-Saharan Africa, building infrastructure and investing in development. The Western powers that overthrow him will continue to buy Libyan oil as before. The major difference could be that the new rulers, put in place by Europe, will follow the example of the Arab League sheikhs and shift their oil revenues from Africa to the London stock exchange and Western arms merchants.

Real Reason Number Three: Because Sarkozy followed BHL?s advice.

On March 4, the French literary dandy Bernard-Henri L?vy held a private meeting in Benghazi with Moustapha Abdeljalil, a former justice minister who has turned coats to become leader of the rebel "National Transition Council". That very evening, BHL called Sarkozy on his cellphone and got his agreement to receive the NTC leaders. The meeting took place on March 10 in the Elys?e palace in Paris. As reported in Le Figaro by veteran international reporter Renaud Girard, Sarkozy thereupon announced to the delighted Libyans the plan that he had concocted with BHL: recognition of the NTC as sole legitimate representative of Libya, the naming of a French ambassador to Benghazi, precision strikes on Libyan military airports, with the blessings of the Arab League (which he had already obtained). The French foreign minister, Alain Jupp?, was startled to learn of this dramatic turn in French diplomacy after the media.

Qaddafi explained at length after the uprising began that he could not be called upon to resign, because he held no official office. He was, he insisted, only a "guide", to whom the Libyan people could turn for advice on controversial questions.

It turns out the French also have an unofficial spiritual guide: Bernard-Henri L?vy. While Qaddafi wears colorful costumes and dwells in a tent, BHL wears impeccable white shirts open down his manly chest and hangs out in the Saint Germain des Pr?s section of Paris. Neither was elected. Both exercise their power in mysterious ways.

In the Anglo-American world, Bernard-Henri L?vy is regarded as a comic figure, much like Qaddafi. His "philosophy" has about as many followers as the Little Green Book of the Libyan guide. But BHL also has money, lots of it, and is the friend of lots more. He exercises enormous influence in the world of French media, inviting journalists, writers, show business figures to his vacation paradise in Marrakech, serving on the board of directors of the two major "center-left" daily newspaper, Lib?ration and Le Monde. He writes regularly in whatever mainstream publication he wants, appears on whatever television channel he chooses. By ordinary people in France, he is widely detested. But they cannot hope for a UN Security Council resolution to get rid of him.

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions.She can be reached at  diana.josto@yahoo.fr

Diana Johnstone is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Diana Johnstone

Bookmark and Share
Shop Global Research !
#8
Salamun Alaykum


There is no doubt that this very subject of "Salat al Wusta" commonly translated and interpreted by many Muslims as to mean the middle prayer, which is understandable given that, most translations of The Qur'an take Al Salat to mean prayer, and 'wusta' as middle or balanced. However, after re-reading the verses of chapter 2 from 2:220-240 over a long period, I could not understand how the context and the subject matter suddenly deviated to what seems to me as an entirely distinct subject. Even at a glance or a quick read from verse 2:220-240, anyone would know that these verses are talking about Women and "Orphans" and how to deal with them .

So how can we explain the deviation of the subject matter under consideration in verses 238-239 from that of women, orphans, divorces and maintenance etc to "middle prayer ? Every forum members who are muslims know that there are no contradiction in "The Qur'an", so this often contentious translation needs to be resolved by every sincere muslim who wishes to follow Al Qur'an to its letter and spirit. Whilest I am not certain about the accuracy of my understanding/interpretation of 2:238-239, at least I have tried with all sincerety and effort to the best of my ability. Of course, helps and assistance from 'Forum Members' are always welcome and appreciated .

Before I go on to my interpretation of the above verses, allow me to tell you that my take on "Salat" is that salat is a commitment/obligation and not "prayer", this is so people will know how I arrived at this conclusion/interpretation if we could call it that. I have used most of the tools available on line in studying AQ, including the 'root meanings of words' from PRL .

حَافِظُوا عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَىٰ وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ


238   "Ĥāfi?ū `Al? Aş-Şalawāti Wa Aş-Şalāati Al-Wusţ? Wa Qūmū Lillāhi Qānitīna".

238   Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).

       "Be mindful/guard strictly upon(on) the commitments, and commitment moderate/balanced/measured and stand up for Allah obediently".(AQ:2:238).

239   فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ فَرِجَالًا أَوْ رُكْبَانًا ۖ فَإِذَا أَمِنتُمْ فَاذْكُرُوا اللَّهَ كَمَا عَلَّمَكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُوا تَعْلَمُونَ


239   "Fa'in Khiftum Farijālāan 'Aw Rukbānāan Fa'idhā 'Amintum Fādhkurū Allāha Kamā `Allamakum Mā Lam Takūnū Ta`lamūna"

239   If ye fear (an enemy), pray on foot, or riding, (as may be most convenient), but when ye are in security, celebrate Allah.s praises in the manner He has taught you, which ye knew not (before).

239- "And if you are afraid/in fear/unable, then (honor) the commitment by step/instalment, then when you are secure(financially, honor the commitment/obligation by lump-sum), then remember Allah as He has taught you what you knew not "

Any comment, correction by forum members are welcome and may Allah guide us all to a better understanding of His Book in particular, and understanding of the world in general .

Peace

almarh0m

#9
Salamun Alaykum

Looking back at Afghanistan and Iraq, one would have thought that , "The Coalition of Oil Thieves" would have learnt some valuable lessons from their Invasions of Afghanistan and of Iraq. Although these coalition of oil thieves can claim some sort of success at getting rid of the "Dreaded Taliban" in Afghanistan albeit temporarily , and the removal of "The Evil Saddam Hussein and His WMD" permanently. However, these successes did not come without a cost. Tens of thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost and tens of thousand more wounded and maimed for life . Not to mentioned the cost of lives on the part of the invaders. Eight years on after the Invasion of Iraq, senseless violence and regular suicide bombings continue unabated, and there is no sign the bombings are going to end any time soon.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, nearly ten years on, The Taliban is back meaner and more determined to rid the invaders of off their homeland. The Occupiers of Afghanistan cannot claim with any credibilty that they have succeeded in bringing peace, security, or stability to the country after almost ten years of war. Now, it is Libya's turn, and this time the excuse or justification for the air attacks and bombardments is allegedly, to save the Libyan civilians lives and to prevent massacre of the armed rebels by the Qaddafi government.

The Imperialists/Oil-Thieves, yes you guessed it, the same gang that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan have been demonising Qaddafi and his goverment for decades, now, seize their chance to take over Libya through their puppet-protesters cum heavily armed rebels . There is no doubt that these "Oil Thieves" already have several Hamid Karzais and Iyyad Alawi or Nouri Al Malikis waiting in Benghazi to serve their new masters. Whatever The Coalition of Oil Thieves think of Qaddafi, there is no doubt that he is a hero to Libya and to many patriotic Libyans as well as to some African Nations.

What would these Invading Oil-Thieves do if back in their own countries, a mob or mobs of sub-machine guns toting "peaceful demonstrators" do the same thing as the armed rebels do in Libya ? We can safely say that The L.A.P.D. Or The N.Y.P.D. would not be as tolerant as the Qaddafi government if it happens in their juridictions. Now that these coalition have proven their concern and respect for human-rights by rescuing the peaceful-protesters in Libya, we can all look forward to seeing Bahrain as the next target ? For the sake of consistency, perhaps it is not too much to ask to do a "Libya" to Yemen as well ? Nope , that's too much to expect from an honorable Coalition of Thieves, there is no bloody Oil in Yemen you fools .

Peace

almarh0m

22/03/2011
#10
Peace

Can someone please point me to the verse that specifically prohibit people from overthrowing a corrupt and oppressive government ?


Peace and Thank You

almarh0m
#11
The American Dilemma in Libya: To Bomb, Invade, Partition, Or All of the Above

by Glen Ford

   
Global Research, March 19, 2011
BlackAgendaReport.com


?The West dearly wishes to appropriate to itself a section of the ?Arab revolt,? so as to bomb an evil ?dictator? on their behalf.?

The UN Security Council voted on Thursday to authorize a ?no-fly zone? over Libya ? a surprise to the author, who had predicted in the this column on Tuesday that China and/or Russia would veto the move. The measure gives the OK to ?all necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces ? wording the U.S. and its allies will undoubtedly treat as a mandate to apply as much force as they wish. In light of the disastrous UN action, the title of this article is even more appropriate than when it was first published.

?R2P? ? Responsibility to Protect ? is the Obama regime?s favored formula for pouring mud in the otherwise clear waters of international law. The philosophy ? actually, a political position seeking legal recognition ? amounts to a kind of super-power judicial waiver couched in the language of nobles oblige, the obligation of the strong to help the weak. In the real world, the strong only help themselves ? in this case, to Libya?s oil reserves, the largest in Africa.

Obama UN Ambassador Susan Rice, a far meaner junkyard dog than George Bush?s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is the administration?s loudest and most bellicose proponent of so-called ?humanitarian? intervention. Even before the Democrats won the White House, Susan Rice proposed a sea and air blockade and ?no-fly zone? against Sudan. Having finally succeeded in partitioning Sudan, after decades of fomenting civil war, the West is clearly considering the ?option? of partitioning Libya, where most of the oil is conveniently located in the eastern part of the country, near Benghazi.

The workings of the imperial brain are plainly visible in the output of the corporate press, which act as ventriloquist dummies to power. Suddenly, the media have all undergone a crash course in the intractable nature of Libyan tribal politics ? a subject until now totally unknown to the western press. After a quick education from the State Department and designated think tankers, corporate media dutifully prepare the public for the possible drawing of an American ?line in the sand? somewhere before the gates of Benghazi, a town that would then be dubbed a ?hero city? ? the opposite of Fallujah, the demon-city leveled by the U.S. in 2004 at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, to the cheers of U.S. corporate media.

?The West is clearly considering the ?option? of partitioning Libya.?


Western reporters, who are such quick studies when it comes to tribalisms and other perceived pathologies of exotic, non-western peoples, have not yet figured out who the rebels are, politically. This is quite strange, since corporate correspondents have for weeks spent all their waking hours among the rebels, profiling individuals and rushing to the battlefronts. Yet, they cannot ? or will not ? provide a coherent overview of rebel politics, beyond an incandescent hatred of Khadafi, the man. Khadafi?s narrative of the conflict, that the rebels are largely Al Qaida-type elements, is dismissed as nonsensical. But no one disputes that Benghazi was the center of an Islamic revolt in the Nineties, and that resentments from that period fester. The presence of Islamic militants among the rebels is now widely acknowledged, although corporate correspondents can?t seem to find many in the flesh to profile.

The western media, and the governments they serve, are caught in crossfire of contradictions. The U.S. wants desperately to position itself on the ?right? side of some aspect of the unfolding Arab Reawakening. The West dearly wishes to appropriate to itself a section of the ?Arab revolt,? so as to bomb an evil ?dictator? on their behalf. The western media?s job is to do the public relations work, presenting these ?pro-western? combatants in the most attractive light. However, it appears the media are having trouble packaging the Libyan rebels as sufficiently virtuous ?freedom fighters? ? one suspects because, on closer inspection, many turn out to be fundamentalists or tribalists.

?Why is the rebellion apparently incapable of taking advantage of mass desertions from the armed forces??


Ironically, the merest presence of Islamic fundamentalist fighters would have, in previous times, been reason for a U.S. attack and invasion ? against those harboring such elements.

And, what happened to the estimated 6,000 former regime troops that deserted at the start of the rebellion? Some former Khadafi officers occupy high profile positions in the rebel ranks, but the equivalent of several brigades worth of deserters is not in evidence. This, again, raises the question of who the rebel leaders really are; why are they apparently incapable of taking advantage of mass desertions from the armed forces? One cannot help but suspect the presence of unwholesome elements around whom former soldiers and others cannot bring themselves to effectively coalesce.

The most unwholesome elements of all, of course, are the U.S. and European imperialists, whose intervention represents the overarching threat to the Libyan and Arab nation. Much is made of the Arab League?s request for a no-fly zone over Libya. But the League?s rather ambiguous proposal ? it cautions against an ?attack? on Libya, as if a no-fly zone can be imposed without attacking anybody ? has no more force of law than a NATO no-fly decision, or an African Union decision to attack Europe!

The United States has paid no attention to countless Arab League resolutions regarding Israel?s six decades of lawless behavior in the region, or to the Jewish State?s constant violations of UN resolutions. No one in the Arab world believes the West has suddenly developed a new respect for either Arabs or the rule of law. What?s new is western fear that, at long last, the empire is finally slipping away.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com .

Glen Ford is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  
#12
Discuss Latest World News / Bahrain Pulls a Qaddafi
March 17, 2011, 09:02:38 AM
Bahrain Pulls a Qaddafi
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 16, 2011

                                       
                   

It is heartbreaking to see a renegade country like Libya shoot pro-democracy protesters. But it?s even more wrenching to watch America?s ally, Bahrain, pull a Qaddafi and use American tanks, guns and tear gas as well as foreign mercenaries to crush a pro-democracy movement ? as we stay mostly silent.
Damon Winter/The New York Times

         
 In Bahrain in recent weeks, I?ve seen corpses of protesters who were shot at close range, seen a teenage girl writhing in pain after being clubbed, seen ambulance workers beaten for trying to rescue protesters ? and in the last few days it has gotten much worse. Saudi Arabia, in a slap at American efforts to defuse the crisis, dispatched troops to Bahrain to help crush the protesters. The result is five more deaths, by the count of The Associated Press.

One video from Bahrain appears to show security forces shooting an unarmed middle-aged man in the chest with a tear gas canister at a range of a few feet. The man collapses and struggles to get up. And then they shoot him with a canister in the head. Amazingly, he survived.

Today the United States is in a vise ? caught between our allies and our values. And the problem with our pal Bahrain is not just that it is shooting protesters but also that it is something like an apartheid state. Sunni Muslims rule the country, and now they are systematically trying to crush an overwhelmingly Shiite protest movement.

My New York Times colleague Michael Slackman was caught by Bahrain security forces a few weeks ago. He said that they pointed shotguns at him and that he was afraid they were about to shoot when he pulled out his passport and shouted that he was an American journalist. Then, he says, the mood changed abruptly and the leader of the group came over and took Mr. Slackman?s hand, saying warmly: ?Don?t worry! We love Americans!?

?We?re not after you. We?re after Shia,? the policeman added. Mr. Slackman recalls: ?It sounded like they were hunting rats.?

All this is tragic because the ruling al-Khalifa family can be justly proud of what it has built in Bahrain, including a prosperous and dynamic society, a highly educated work force and a society in which women are far better off than next door in Saudi Arabia. On a good day, Bahrain feels like an oasis of moderation in a tough region.

Yet you can parachute blindfolded into almost any neighborhood in Bahrain and tell immediately whether it is Sunni or Shiite. The former enjoy better roads and public services. And it?s almost impossible for Shiites to be hired by the army or police. Doesn?t that sound like an echo of apartheid?

It is true that Bahrain?s protesters have behaved in ways that have undermined their cause. They frequently chant ?Death to al-Khalifa? ? a toxic slogan that should offend everyone. And some protesters have targeted Pakistanis and other South Asians who often work for security services.

This slide toward radicalization and violence was unnecessary. The king could have met some of the protesters? demands ? such as fire the prime minister and move to a Jordanian- or Moroccan-style constitutional monarchy. Most protesters would have accepted such a compromise. Instead, the royal family talked about dialogue but didn?t make meaningful concessions, and the security forces remain almost as brutal as any in the region.

I wrote a few weeks ago about a distinguished plastic surgeon, Sadiq al-Ekri, who had been bludgeoned by security forces. At the time, I couldn?t interview Dr. Ekri because he was unconscious. But I later returned and was able to talk to him, and his story offers a glimpse into Bahrain?s tragedy.

Dr. Ekri is a moderate Shiite who said his best friend is a Sunni. Indeed, Dr. Ekri recently took several weeks off work to escort this friend to Houston for medical treatment. When Bahrain?s security forces attacked protesters, Dr. Ekri tried to help the injured. He said he was trying to rescue a baby abandoned in the melee when police handcuffed him. Even after they knew his identity, he said they clubbed him so hard that they broke his nose. Then, he said, they pulled down his pants and threatened to rape him ? all while cursing Shiites.

The Arab democracy spring that begun with such exhilaration in Tunisia and Egypt is now enduring a brutal winter in Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The United States bases the Navy?s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, and we have close relations with the Bahraini government. We?re not going to pull out our naval base.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rightly deplored the violence in Bahrain, and the administration as a whole should speak out forcefully. If the brave women and men demanding democracy in Bahrain have the courage to speak out, we should do so as well. 

Gail Collins is off today.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 17, 2011, on page A35 of the New York edition.


   


   
#13
Arab League Backs No-Fly Zone in Libya

by Ann Talbot and Barry Grey

   
Global Research, March 14, 2011
World Socialist Web Site


     

The decision of the Arab League on Saturday to call for a no-fly zone in Libya and recognize the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council is a significant step toward direct US-NATO intervention to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and install an even more subservient client regime.



The Arab bourgeois governments acted with obedience and alacrity to calls from the Obama administration, Britain, France and NATO for the ?Arab world? to provide a fig leaf of regional support for imperialist intervention. Their decision on Saturday precedes a meeting of NATO ministers Tuesday where the issue of a no-fly zone will be discussed.



The 22-member organization of Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa (minus Libya, which has been suspended and whose delegates were refused admission to Saturday?s meeting in Cairo), by following France?s lead in recognizing the Libyan opposition leadership, assured a deepening of civil war in the country. The meeting declared that Libya had ?lost its sovereignty? as a result of Gaddafi?s attacks on civilians, implicitly giving the US and NATO a blank check to carry out regime change.



This corresponds to the plans of the US and its allies to use Gaddafi?s atrocities and the expanding civil war as the pretext for turning Libya into a military and political base for suppressing the ongoing mass movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan and other countries, bolstering the imperialist-backed dictatorships, and strengthening the militaries upon which both capitalist rule and imperialist control of vital energy resources are based.



The World Socialist Web Site supports the struggle of the Libyan masses to overthrow Gaddafi?s right-wing bourgeois dictatorship. But we emphatically oppose imperialist intervention and Gaddafi?s overthrow at the hands of the US and NATO, rather than by the oppressed masses under the leadership of the working class. As in Iraq and Afghanistan, a US-led intervention will be directed against the population, which will soon become the target of American-made missiles and bombs.



The Arab League?s action is an exercise in hypocrisy on a colossal scale. The resolution urging the United Nations Security Council to authorize a no-fly zone describes such action as a humanitarian measure and rejects ?military intervention.? This is a transparent fraud, as everyone knows the imposition of a no-fly zone involves the bombing of Libyan air defenses and other installations?that is, an act of war.



All of the 21 regimes involved in the decision are right-wing dictatorships that are hated by their own people and rule by means of ferocious repression. They signed on to the imperialist push for military intervention for their own reactionary reasons. First, they want to firm up the support for their rule by the US and the other powers because of the mounting threat from below. Second, they all seek by lining up behind the US against Gaddafi to further their own regional interests.



Most of the leaders of the opposition National Transitional Council only weeks ago were part of the Gaddafi regime. They have gone out of their way to reassure the West that they will uphold all of the lucrative contracts and concessions granted by Gaddafi to the big oil companies.



Of the 22 Arab League nation states, at least 13, besides Libya, have been attacking, arresting, killing and wounding their own protesting people over the past two months. The list includes Algeria, Bahrain (which fired rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds on Sunday), Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia (which blocked protests Friday with a massive police presence and preemptive arrests), Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen. The latter?s delegate was voting to invite imperialist intervention ostensibly to protect Libyan civilians even as his own government was using live ammunition to kill and wound hundreds of protesters in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.



Youssef bin Alawi bin Abdullah, foreign minister to Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said, announced the decision at a press conference following the meeting. In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mousa acknowledged he did not know ?how nor who [would] impose this zone.? Effectively giving the US and NATO a free hand, he said, ?That remains to be seen.?



Mousa added, ?The Arab League can also play a role. That is what I will recommend.? This corresponds to statements from Western governments demanding that the Arab regimes be involved in the no-fly zone and other possible military actions.



This suggests that the US plans to use the Libyan intervention to more closely integrate the militaries of Egypt and other Arab States and bolster their strength in advance of the inevitable confrontation with the Arab working class.



Mousa, it should be pointed out, was a long-time functionary of Mubarak, serving as his foreign minister from 1991 to 2001 and thereafter holding other key diplomatic positions.



Meanwhile, the Obama administration is moving closer to formally recognizing the National Transitional Council in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to meet today with Mahmoud Jibril, who is in charge of foreign affairs for the opposition council, in Paris. Jibril was received last Thursday by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.



Clinton said she would also meet the Libyan opposition during her trip this week to Egypt and Tunisia. On Friday, Obama announced that the US would name a special envoy to deal with the opposition leadership.



Jibril and Ali Aujali, the Libyan ambassador to the United States, who defected to the opposition several weeks ago, were received Friday at the US Treasury Department, where they discussed the Libyan assets frozen under new US sanctions. They also met at the State Department with Jeffery Feltman, the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.



?Our main priority is the no-fly zone,? Aujali said.



Reuters news service on Friday cited Jos? Ignacio Torreblanca, the head of the Madrid office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, on a strategy to counter opposition from China and Russia to a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a no-fly zone.



Reuters wrote, ?If other countries join France, which Torreblanca expects, momentum could build to allow rebel leaders to directly request a no-fly zone, which would make it a lot easier for NATO and the Security Council. ?If Benghazi authorities get more recognition, and they request a no-fly zone directly, then China and Russia will have to abstain,? Torreblanca said.?



It is, in any event, increasingly likely that the US and NATO will go ahead with a no-fly zone even without UN sanction, citing the Arab regimes? endorsement as proof of support in the region. In reality, there is a great deal of opposition to US intervention among the masses of North Africa and the Middle East.



The Washington Post on Sunday reported on an anti-Gaddafi demonstration of Egyptians and Libyans outside the Arab League?s headquarters on Tahrir Square in Cairo. The protesters carried signs, the Post wrote, describing the Libyan dictator as a ?genocidal butcher.?

    ?But they also expressed wariness over the potential for Western military involvement in the conflict?. ?We are not calling for American intervention,? said Omar Mohamed, a 21-year-old student.?


Ann Talbot is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Ann Talbot

Global Research Articles by Barry Grey

Bookmark and Share
Shop Global Research !

P.S. Isn't this another concrete proof of AQ 9:97 >"   Al-'A`rābu 'Ashaddu Kufrāan Wa Nifāqāan Wa 'Ajdaru 'Allā Ya`lamū Ĥudūda Mā 'Anzala Allāhu `Al? Rasūlihi Wa Allāhu `Alīmun Ĥakīmun "

"The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger. But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise"

Peace

almarh0m

p.p.s : Please delete the same post on the other Heading . My sincere apology for this error . Thank you
#14
Explosive WikiLeaks Cables Nail Yudhoyono
Tag it:


Written by Philip Dorling  
Friday, 11 March 2011
US embassy in Jakarta has serious doubts about the Indonesian president's own integrity

When Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won a surprise victory in Indonesia's 2004 presidential elections, the United States Embassy in Jakarta hailed it as "a remarkable triumph of a popular, articulate figure against a rival [incumbent president Megawati Sukarnoputri] with more power, money, and connections."

The former army general and security minister has gone on to win international accolades for strengthening governance, promoting economic reform, and his efforts to suppress the Islamic militant group Jemaah Islamiyah.

While visiting Jakarta last November, US President Barack Obama applauded Indonesia's democracy and "the leadership of my good friend President Yudhoyono."

However Yudhoyono's record may have to be reviewed after secret US embassy cables, leaked to WikiLeaks and provided to Fairfax Media, reveal allegations of corruption and abuse of power that extend all the way to the presidential palace.

According to the diplomatic cables, Yudhoyono, widely known by his initials SBY, personally intervened to influence prosecutors and judges to protect corrupt political figures and put pressure on his adversaries. He reportedly also used the Indonesian intelligence service to spy on rivals and, on at least one occasion, a senior minister in his own government.

Yudhoyono's former vice-president reportedly paid out millions of dollars to buy control of Indonesia's largest political party, while the President's wife and her family have allegedly moved to enrich themselves on the basis of their political connections.

The US embassy's political reporting, much of it classified "Secret/NoForn" ? meaning for American eyes only ? makes clear that the continuing influence of money politics, which extends, despite the President's public commitment to combating corruption, to Yudhoyono himself.

The US embassy cables reveal that one of Yudhoyono's early presidential actions was to personally intervene in the case of Taufik Kiemas, the husband of former president Megawati Sukarnoputri. Taufik reportedly used his continuing control of his wife's Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI-P) to broker protection from prosecution for what the US diplomats described as "legendary corruption during his wife's tenure."

Taufik has been publicly accused, though without charges being laid against him, of improper dealings in massive infrastructure projects heavily tainted with corruption. He is believed to have profited from deals relating to the US$2.3billion Jakarta Outer Ring Road project, the US$2.4 billion double-track railway project from Merak in West Java to Banyuwangi in East Java, the US$2.3billion trans-Kalimantan highway, and the US$1.7 billion trans-Papua highway.

In December 2004, the US embassy in Jakarta reported to Washington that one of its most valued political informants, senior presidential adviser TB Silalahi, had advised that Indonesia's Assistant Attorney-General, Hendarman Supandji, who was then leading the new government's anti-corruption campaign, had gathered "sufficient evidence of the corruption of former first gentleman Taufik Kiemas to warrant Taufik's arrest."

However, Silalahi, one of Yudhoyono's closest political confidants, told the US embassy that the president "had personally instructed Hendarman not to pursue a case against Taufik."

No legal proceedings were brought against the former "first gentleman," who remains an influential political figure and is now speaker of Indonesia's parliament, the People's Consultative Assembly.

While Yudhoyono protected Taufik from prosecution, his then vice-president, Jusuf Kalla, allegedly paid what the US embassy described as "enormous bribes" to win the chairmanship of Golkar, Indonesia's largest political party, during a December 2004 party congress, US diplomats observed firsthand.

"According to multiple sources close to the major candidates, Kalla's team offered district boards at least Rp200 million (over US$22,000) for their votes," the US embassy reported. "Provincial boards ? which had the same voting right, but also could influence subordinate district boards ? received Rp500 million or more. According to one contact with prior experience in such matters, board officials received down payments ...and would expect full payment from the winner, in cash, within hours of the vote."

US diplomats reported that, with 243 votes required to win a majority, the Golkar chairmanship would have cost more than US$6 million.

"One contact claimed that [then Indonesian House of Representatives chairman Agung Laksono] alone ? not the wealthiest of Kalla's backers ? had allocated (if not actually spent) Rp50 billion (more than US$5.5 million ) on the event." The US embassy cables further allege that Yudhoyono had then cabinet secretary Sudi Silalahi "intimidate" at least one judge in a 2006 court case arising from a fight for control of former president Abdurahman Wahid's National Awakening Party (PKB). According to the embassy's contacts, Sudi told the judge "if the court were to help [Wahid] it would be like helping to overthrow the government."

The intervention of "SBY's right-hand man" was not successful in a direct sense because, according to embassy sources with close ties to the PKB and lawyers involved in the case, Wahid's supporters paid the judges Rp3 billion in bribes for a verdict that awarded control of PKB to Wahid instead of a dissident faction. However, Yudhoyono's strategic objective was achieved as external pressure on Wahid's "precarious position" forced the PKB to reposition itself to support the administration.

Other US embassy reports indicate that Yudhoyono has used the Indonesian State Intelligence Agency (BIN) to spy on both his political allies and opponents.

The president reportedly also got BIN to spy on rival presidential candidates. This practice appears to have begun while Yudhoyono was serving as co-ordinating minister of political and security affairs in former president Megawati's government. He directed the intelligence service to report on former army commander and Golkar presidential candidate Wiranto. Subsequently, at a meeting of Yudhoyono's cabinet, BIN chief Syamsir characterised Wiranto as a "terrorist mastermind."

Through his own military contacts Wiranto learnt that he was the subject of "derogatory" BIN reports, but when he complained he was told by presidential adviser TB Silalahi that no such reports existed.

The leaked US embassy cables are ambiguous on the question of whether Yudhoyono has been personally engaged in corruption. However, US diplomats reported that at a 2006 meeting with the chairman of his own Democratic Party, Yudhoyono "bemoaned his own failure to date to establish himself in business matters," apparently feeling "he needed to ?catch up' ... [and] wanted to ensure he left a sizeable legacy for his children."

In the course of investigating the President's private, political and business interests, American diplomats noted alleged links between Yudhoyono and Chinese-Indonesian businessmen, most notably Tomy Winata, an alleged underworld figure and member of the "Gang of Nine" or "Nine Dragons," a leading gambling syndicate.

In 2006, Agung Laksono, now Yudhoyono's Co-ordinating Minister for People's Welfare, told US embassy officers that TB Silalahi "functioned as a middleman, relaying funds from Winata to Yudhoyono, protecting the president from the potential liabilities that could arise if Yudhoyono were to deal with Tomy directly."

Tomy Winata reportedly also used prominent entrepreneur Muhammad Lutfi as a channel of funding to Yudhoyono. Yudhoyono appointed Lutfi chairman of Indonesia's Investment Co-ordinating Board.

Senior State Intelligence Agency official Yahya Asagaf also told the US embassy Tomy Winata was trying to cultivate influence by using a senior presidential aide as his channel to first lady Kristiani Herawati.

Yudhoyono's wife and relatives also feature prominently in the US embassy's political reporting, with American diplomats highlighting the efforts of the president's family "particularly first lady Kristiani Herawati ...to profit financially from its political position."

In June 2006, one presidential staff member told US embassy officers Kristiani's family members were "specifically targeting financial opportunities related to state-owned enterprises." The well-connected staffer portrayed the President as "witting of these efforts, which his closest operators (e.g. Sudi Silalahi) would advance, while Yudhoyono himself maintained sufficient distance that he could not be implicated."

Such is the first lady's behind-the-scenes influence that the US embassy described her as "a cabinet of one" and "the President's undisputed top adviser."

The embassy reported: "As presidential adviser TB Silalahi told [US political officers], members of the President's staff increasingly feel marginalised and powerless to provide counsel to the President."

Yahya Asagaf at the State Intelligence Agency privately declared the first lady's opinion to be "the only one that matters."

Significantly, the US embassy's contacts identified Kristiani as the primary influence behind Yudhoyono's decision to drop vice-president Kalla as his running mate in the 2009 presidential elections.

With Bank of Indonesia governor Boediono as his new vice-presidential running mate, Yudhoyono went on to an overwhelming victory. The president secured more than 60 per cent of the vote, defeating both former president Megawati, who had teamed up with former special forces commander Prabowo Subianto, and vice-president Kalla, who allied himself with Wiranto.

In January 2010 the US embassy observed: "Ten years of political and economic reform have made Indonesia democratic, stable, and increasingly confident about its leadership role in south-east Asia and the Muslim world. Indonesia has held successful, free and fair elections; has weathered the global financial crisis; and is tackling internal security threats."

However, America's diplomats also noted that a series of political scandals through late 2009 and into 2010 had seriously damaged Yudhoyono's political standing.

A protracted conflict between the Indonesian police and the national Corruption Eradication Commission had damaged the government's public anti-corruption credentials, while a parliamentary inquiry into the massive bailout of a major financial institution, Bank Century, called into question the Vice-President's performance as former central bank governor.

One prominent anti-corruption non-government organization privately told the US embassy that it had "credible" information that funds from Bank Century had been used for financing Yudhoyono's re-election campaign.

Former vice-president Kalla strongly criticized the bailout, alleging that the Bank of Indonesia under Boediono had been negligent in supervising Bank Century and arguing that the bank should have been closed as its failure was due to fraud perpetrated by major shareholders.

Against this background the US embassy reported that Yudhoyono was increasingly "paralyzed" as his political popularity rapidly diminished.

"Unwilling to risk alienating segments of the parliament, media, bureaucracy and civil society, Yudhoyono has slowed reforms. He is also unwilling to cross any constituencies ...Until he is satisfied that he has shored up his political position, Yudhoyono is unlikely to spend any political capital to move his reform agenda, or controversial aspects of US -Indonesia relations, forward."

Over the past 13 years Indonesian democracy has undoubtedly strengthened. The Suharto dictatorship has been replaced by a competitive political system characterized by robust debate and free media.

However, as the leaked US embassy's reports show, in what is only a glimpse of the inside workings of President Yudhoyono's tenure, some of the secretive and corrupt habits of the Suharto years still linger in Indonesian presidential politics.

Another version of this story appeared in The Age in Melbourne, Australia.


   


#15
Another NATO Intervention? Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again?

by Diana Johnstone

   
Global Research, March 8, 2011

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

0diggsdigg       StumbleUpon Submit    16Share       

Less than a dozen years after NATO bombed Yugoslavia into pieces, detaching the province of Kosovo from Serbia, there are signs that the military alliance is gearing up for another victorious little ?humanitarian war?, this time against Libya.  The differences are, of course, enormous.  But let?s look at some of the disturbing similarities.

A demonized leader.

As ?the new Hitler?, the man you love to hate and need to destroy, Slobodan Milosevic was a neophyte in 1999 compared to Muammar Qaddafi today.  The media had less than a decade to turn Milosevic into a monster, whereas with Qaddafi, they?ve been at it for several decades.  And Qaddafi is more exotic, speaking less English and coming before the public in outfits that could have been created by John Galliano (another recently outed monster).  This exotic aspect arouses the ancestral mockery and contempt for lesser cultures with which the West was won, Africa was colonized and the Summer Palace in Beijing was ravaged by Western soldiers fighting to make the world safe for opium addiction.

The ?we must do something? chorus.

As with Kosovo, the crisis in Libya is perceived by the hawks as an opportunity to assert power.  The unspeakable John Yoo, the legal advisor who coached the Bush II administration in the advantages of torturing prisoners, has used the Wall Street Journal to advise the Obama administration to ignore the U.N Charter and leap into the Libyan fray. ?By putting aside the U.N.'s antiquated rules, the United States can save lives, improve global welfare, and serve its own national interests at the same time,? Yoo proclaimed.  And another leading theorist of humanitarian imperialism, Geoffrey Robertson, has told The Independent that, despite appearances, violating international law is lawful.

The specter of ?crimes against humanity? and ?genocide? is evoked to justify war.

As with Kosovo, an internal conflict between a government and armed rebels is being cast as a ?humanitarian crisis? in which one side only, the government, is assumed to be ?criminal?.  This a priori criminalization is expressed by calling on an international judicial body to examine crimes which are assumed to have been committed, or to be about to be committed.  In his Op Ed piece, Geoffrey Robertson made it crystal clear how the International Criminal Court is being used to set the stage for eventual military intervention.  The ICC can be used by the West to get around the risk of a Security Council veto for military action, he explained.

   ?In the case of Libya , the council has at least set an important precedent by unanimously endorsing a reference to the International Criminal Court. [?]  So what happens if the unarrested Libyan indictees aggravate their crimes - eg by stringing up or shooting in cold blood their opponents, potential witnesses, civilians, journalists or prisoners of war??  [Note that so far there are no ?indictees? and no proof of ?crimes? that they supposedly may ?aggravate? in various imaginary ways.)  But Robertson is eager to find a way for NATO ?to pick up the gauntlet? if the Security Council decides to do nothing.]
     
   ?The defects in the Security Council require the acknowledgement of a limited right, without its mandate, for an alliance like NATO to use force to stop the commission of crimes against humanity. That right arises once the council has identified a situation as a threat to world peace (and it has so identified Libya, by referring it unanimously to the ICC prosecutor).?

Thus referring a country to the ICC prosecutor can be a pretext for waging war against that country!  By the way, the ICC jurisdiction is supposed to apply to States that have ratified the treaty establishing it, which, as I understand, is not the case of Libya ? or of the United States.  A big difference, however, is that the United States has been able to persuade, bully or bribe countless signatory States to accept agreements that they will never under any circumstances try to refer any American offenders to the ICC.  That is a privilege denied Qaddafi.

Robertson, a member of the UN justice council, concludes that: ?The duty to stop the mass murder of innocents, as best we can if they request our help, has crystallized to make the use of force by Nato not merely ?legitimate? but lawful.?

Leftist idiocy.

Twelve years ago, most of the European left supported ?the Kosovo war? that set NATO on the endless path it now pursues in Afghanistan. Having learned nothing, many seem ready for a repeat performance.  A coalition of parties calling itself the European Left has issued a statement ?strongly condemning the repression perpetrated by the criminal regime of Colonel Qaddafi? and urging the European Union ?to condemn the use of force and to act promptly to protect the people that are peacefully demonstrating and struggling for their freedom.?  Inasmuch as the opposition to Qaddafi is not merely ?peacefully demonstrating?, but in part has taken up arms, this comes down to condemning the use of force by some and not by others ? but it is unlikely that the politicians who drafted this statement even realize what they are saying.

The narrow vision of the left is illustrated by the statement in a Trotskyist paper that: ?Of all the crimes of Qaddafi, the one that is without doubt the most grave and least known is his complicity with the EU migration policy??   For the far left, Qaddafi?s biggest sin is cooperating with the West, just as the West is to be condemned for cooperating with Qaddafi.  This is a left that ends up, out of sheer confusion, as cheerleader for war.

Refugees.

The mass of refugees fleeing Kosovo as NATO began its bombing campaign was used to justify that bombing, without independent investigation into the varied causes of that temporary exodus ? a main cause probably being the bombing itself. Today, from the way media report on the large number of refugees leaving Libya since the troubles began, the public could get the impression that they are fleeing persecution by Qaddafi.  As is frequently the case, media focuses on the superficial image without seeking explanations.  A bit of reflection may fill the information gap.  It is hardly likely that Qaddafi is chasing away the foreign workers that his regime brought to Libya to carry out important infrastructure projects.  Rather it is fairly clear that some of the ?democratic? rebels have attacked the foreign workers out of pure xenophobia.  Qaddafi?s openness to Africans in particular is resented by a certain number of Arabs.  But not too much should be said about this, since they are now our ?good guys?.  This is a bit the way Albanian attacks on Roma in Kosovo were overlooked or excused by NATO occupiers on the grounds that ?the Roma had collaborated with the Serbs?.

Osama bin Laden.

Another resemblance between former Yugoslavia and Libya is that the United States (and its NATO allies) once again end up on the same side as their old friend from Afghan Mujahidin days, Osama bin Laden.  Osama bin Laden was a discreet ally of the Islamist party of Alija Izetbegovic during the Bosnia civil war, a fact that has been studiously overlooked by the NATO powers.  Of course, Western media have largely dismissed Qaddafi?s current claim that he is fighting against bin Laden as the ravings of a madman.  However, the combat between Qaddafi and bin Laden is very real and predates the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  Indeed, Qaddafi was the first to try to alert Interpol to bin Laden, but got no cooperation from the United States.  In November 2007, the French news agency AFP reported that the leaders of the ?Fighting Islamic Group? in Libya announced they were joining Al Qaeda.  Like the Mujahidin who fought in Bosnia, that Libyan Islamist Group was formed in 1995 by veterans of the U.S.-sponsored fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  Their declared aim was to overthrow Qaddafi in order to establish a radical Islamist state.  The base of radical Islam has always been in the Eastern part of Libya where the current revolt broke out.  Since that revolt does not at all resemble the peaceful mass demonstrations that overthrew dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, but has a visible component of armed militants, it can reasonably be assumed that the Islamists are taking part in the rebellion.

Refusal of negotiations.

In 1999, the United States was eager to use the Kosovo crisis to give NATO?s new ?out of area? mission its baptism of fire.  The charade of peace talks at Rambouillet was scuttled by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who sidelined more moderate Kosovo Albanian leaders in favor of Hashim Thaci, the young leader of the ?Kosovo Liberation Army?, a network notoriously linked to criminal activities.  The Albanian rebels in Kosovo were a mixed bag, but as frequently happens, the US reached in and drew the worst out of that bag.

In Libya, the situation could be even worse.

My own impression, partly as a result of visiting Tripoli four years ago, is that the current rebellion is a much more mixed bag, with serious potential internal contradictions. Unlike Egypt, Libya is not a populous historic state with thousands of years of history, a strong sense of national identity and a long political culture.  Half a century ago, it was one of the poorest countries in the world, and still has not fully emerged from its clan structure. Qaddafi, in his own eccentric way, has been a modernizing factor, using oil revenues to raise the standard of living to one of the highest on the African continent.  The opposition to him comes, paradoxically, both from reactionary traditional Islamists on the one hand, who consider him a heretic for his relatively progressive views, and Westernized beneficiaries of modernization on the other hand, who are embarrassed by the Qaddafi image and want still more modernization.  And there are other tensions that may lead to civil war and even a breakup of the country along geographic lines.

So far, the dogs of war are sniffing around for more bloodshed than has actually occurred.  Indeed, the US escalated the Kosovo conflict in order to ?have to intervene?, and the same risks happening now with regard to Libya, where Western ignorance of what they would be doing is even greater.

The Chavez proposal for neutral mediation to avert catastrophe is the way of wisdom.  But in NATOland, the very notion of solving problems by peaceful mediation rather than by force seems to have evaporated.

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions.She can be reached at  diana.josto@yahoo.fr



Diana Johnstone is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Diana Johnstone

Bookmark and Share
Shop Global Research !