Right here Right now
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
The Menace of Wahabism
His teachings have influenced and ''effected'' many in the Muslim world specially the people of kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. Essentially it became a threat to shiism predominantly prevelant in Iran, Iraq and Syria. Wahabism specially had a deep impact on ''Deobandi'' School of thought in Pakistan and under its influence neighbouring Afghanistan aswell became effected.
Wahabism is a very strict school of thought which forbids reason and logic in overall picture and thats exactly what the followers of Wahabism do; they do not see the overall picture and they think they are practising Islam properly following Wahabi teachings when this is not the case at all.
Islam encourages critical thinking, research, logical argument and debate supported with reason so that the followers of Islam go deep and search for the answers. On the other hand Wahabism is totally against this concept.
Unfortunatley, this Wahabism has effected many Muslims and the effects of this are tremendously huge. With the LACK of Critical thinking, research, logical arguments and debate supported with reason and the PRESENCE of imposition of (very limited narrow minded) Divine understanding of the faith of Islam as taught in Wahabism, majority of Muslims in the 21st century since the advent of Wahabism are illiterate, backward, lacking reason and discourage research and free thinking. The end result is that some of these ''effected'' Muslims provide the recruits or foot soldiers responsible for most of the terrorism in today's world. The rest of the Wahabis and Wahabi-inspired schools of thoughts such as Deobandis do not condemn the acts of terrorism and do not try their utmost to get rid of terrorism.
The ordinary people are just followers and this has been the case and will always be the case in the world. But the real people who hold responsibility are the people who know what is going on and who are at the helm of affairs. They have to take steps to eduacte people about this menace of Wahabism to make this World a safer and better place to live.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Iran Runs Military Nuclear Office, Intel Report Alleges
Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2010
An intelligence document being studied by diplomats in Israel and Western powers alleges that a secret Iranian office is charged with overseeing military elements of the nation's nuclear program, Der Spiegel reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 25).
The United States and its allies have expressed concern that Iran could tap its uranium enrichment program to generate nuclear-weapon material. Tehran has insisted its atomic ambitions are strictly peaceful, and the government has repeatedly informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it has only one, nonmilitary organization involved in the country's uranium enrichment work.
The dossier, though, describes an Iranian Defense Ministry entity responsible for coordinating secret nuclear weapons development efforts. Referred to as the Expanded High-Technology Applications Department, or FEDAT, the office is said to be run by 48-year-old Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a ranking member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and a professor at Imam Hossein University in Tehran.
Seemingly adapted from the earlier Center for Aviation Technology in Tehran, the department is believed to split nuclear weapons development work with Iran's Atomic Energy Agency while competing with the agency in other respects. While the energy agency has generally concentrated on Iran's uranium enrichment program, the Defense Ministry department is assessed to have focused on efforts to develop a nuclear-capable warhead that could fit onto the nation's Shahab ballistic missiles, according to the report.
Such a weapon could be ready between 2012 and 2014, experts say.
The intelligence document indicates that Iran's nuclear weapons work is highly developed, according to officials familiar with the report.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog and Der Spiegel have both obtained documents detailing the office's scientific staff and purported organizational structure, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed the papers as forgeries aimed at incriminating his country.
The United States could begin a push for new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran once France begins its turn chairing the council next month, Der Spiegel reported. China is likely to maintain its opposition to tough economic penalties on the Middle Eastern state, though, a move that could force the United States and European nations to target Tehran independently of the international body (Der Spiegel, Jan. 25).
France yesterday called on other EU nations to move toward imposing additional sanctions on Iran, Agence France-Presse reported.
"The Europeans have to prepare the sanctions process," said Pierre Lellouche, European affairs minister for France. He said that Iran was prompting the new measures with its "refusal of all offers of a solution" to disputes over its nuclear activities.
"We have been in talks for six years," Lellouche said. "All the West's proposals have been rejected and now if we listen to the Iranian spokesman they are reaching 20 percent enrichment" of Iranian uranium, a development he said would place the country on the "threshold to [nuclear] militarization."
He added, though, that the European Union would not pursue its own penalties against Iran if the Security Council failed to agree on new sanctions (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Jan. 26).
"We need to see what comes out of the Security Council discussions and the role the members play and then return to the subject," EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said after conferring with European foreign ministers, according to Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
"The sanction instrument is a very blunt one, so it should be used with extreme care," added Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt (Deutsche Presse Agentur/Monsters and Critics, Jan. 25).
Italy yesterday called for more participation by Arab states in addressing the nuclear dispute, AFP reported.
"We together have to prevent Iran from going nuclear. This is a concern for all of us -- for Western democracies, the United States and Europe, but for Arab states as well," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said in Washington during a press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"We are in perfect agreement in broadening the consultation of a number of states in the region that can be interested and are interested in talking about what to do," Frattini said (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Jan. 25).
Meanwhile, Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili's planned appearance in Moscow this week was delayed and no new date for the trip has been set, RIA Novosti reported.
The scheduled three-day visit was pushed back to permit further preparatory work, according to Iranian state media (RIA Novosti, Jan. 25).
Jalili had been expected to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse III/Google News, Jan. 26).
Elsewhere, Tehran today demanded the extradition of U.S.-based members of an opposition group it blamed for the bombing death this month of Iranian nuclear physics professor Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Reuters reported.
The Swiss ambassador to Iran, whose embassy serves as a point of contact to Washington by Tehran, was called to the Foreign Ministry.
"Regarding the assassination which was claimed by [the pro-Iranian monarchy organization] Tondar, we asked the Swiss Embassy for an explanation on how the U.S. accepted to have this terrorist group in their country," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. "They should be answerable about this and we want the criminals to be extradited to Iran," he said (Hossein Jaseb, Reuters, Jan. 26).
Monday, 25 January 2010
Pakistan Rejects Atom Bomb Material Cut - Off Talks
GENEVA (Reuters) - Pakistan, citing a "clear and present danger" from its nuclear-armed rival India, ruled out on Monday global negotiations to ban the future production of material to make atomic bombs.
Confirming a Reuters report from January 22, Pakistan's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Zamir Akram, said such a treaty would leave Pakistan -- the most recent member of the nuclear club -- at a permanent disadvantage.
Pakistan's stance, triggered by nuclear and arms deals between India and the United States as well as with other nuclear powers, is a blow to the Obama administration's efforts to revive global disarmament.
It also raises a stumbling block to the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament, where members had proposed starting work on talks to halt production of the highly enriched uranium and plutonium used to make nuclear weapons in what would be known as a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).
"A fissile material cut-off treaty that only bans future production of fissile material is unacceptable to Pakistan," Akram told reporters. "It would only accentuate the disparity and imbalance that exists and that simply is not acceptable."
DISAPPOINTED OPTIMISM
Akram said Pakistan was willing to negotiate a fissile treaty that encompassed reductions of existing stocks of material.
It also was ready to discuss other areas proposed at the 65-member conference: nuclear disarmament, limiting the militarisation of outer space, and "negative security assurances" -- promises by nuclear powers not to use atomic weapons on non-nuclear states.
The conference broke a 12-year deadlock last May when all members, including Pakistan, agreed on a programme of work, including talks on a fissile treaty.
But Pakistan subsequently refused to allow the talks to start.
Akram said Islamabad's initial optimism about the Obama administration's disarmament intentions, which had led it to back the conference programme, had quickly evaporated.
Other countries were selling India weapons, he said, and under the terms of a civilian nuclear agreement Washington signed with India in 2005, India was negotiating deals with the U.S. and elsewhere to acquire nuclear technology and material.
Akram neither disputed nor confirmed estimates that India already has twice as many nuclear weapons as Pakistan.
A civilian deal signed with France would provide India with fissile material for its reactors for 60 years, allowing it to use its own stocks for weapons, he said.
India's nuclear and other arms plans were complicating the environment for disarmament talks, he said, saying it was unclear why the United States was helping India build up its nuclear potential.
"But for us it presents us with a clear and present danger arising out of the asymmetry in strategic capabilities in South Asia," he said.
Pakistan would not block the conference but needed more than vague promises that the talks could also cover fissile stocks.
"I want to be clear before we start negotiations what are we talking about," he said.
But Akram said he did not believe states with nuclear weapons would agree to include stocks in the negotiations.
And he condemned nuclear powers for signing civilian deals with India that undermine the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
"Their motivation is greed.. They want to make money. But for us it's life and death," he said.
(Editing by Michael Roddy)
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Resigns Amid CIA Prison Row
Associated Press
VILNIUS, Lithuania—Lithuania's foreign minister said he was resigning Thursday after locking horns with the president over CIA secret prisons and relations with neighboring Belarus.
A parliamentary investigation in December found that Lithuania's national security agency had helped the U.S. intelligence service set up two detention facilities in the Baltic country, though it found no evidence that they actually held prisoners.
Foreign Minister Vygaudas Usackas has said two facilities set up in 2002 and 2004 were never used to interrogate terror suspects.
President Dalia Grybauskaite has said, however, that she believes suspects were held at the prisons, and she admonished the minister for publicly expressing a different viewpoint.
The minister has also clashed with the president over foreign policy, with Mr. Usackas advocating a tougher stance toward Belarus and its authoritarian leader, Alexander Lukashenko.
"Considering the present situation I am announcing my resignation," Mr. Usackas told reporters, adding he would hand in his resignation later Thursday.
Mr. Usackas, 45, is the third minister to resign from Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius's government since it took office in December 2008.
Analysts said Mr. Usackas' departure will not undermine the center-right coalition, which is grappling with a severe recession.
Why Pakistan will not mount new attacks on militants
| | |
 Pakistan's military thinks it has strong reasons not to attack the militants | |
With its announcement that it will launch no new offensives against the Taliban in 2010, Pakistan's army appears to have opened a new innings in its favourite game with the West, says the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad.
For the United States, the statement by the Pakistan army could not have come at a worse time.
Its main intelligence agency, the CIA, is still coming to terms with the death of seven personnel in a suicide attack in Afghanistan by an al-Qaeda "double agent".
That attack, the worst suffered by the agency in four decades, was apparently planned and carried out by Taliban militants in Pakistan's tribal areas.
Under pressure from the US, the Pakistan army launched an operation there in the main Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan in November 2009.
The army has since been able to secure that territory and push out the militants.
 Hillary Clinton wants Pakistan to target militants in Baluchistan |
While some have been captured, most senior Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders have fled the region.
Intelligence officials say they have now taken refuge either in other nearby tribal regions or the neighbouring Balochistan province.
Mission impossible
Top US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have been calling for the military to go after the militants in these regions.
All this comes at a time when Pakistan's government is already under a great deal of domestic criticism.
This is mainly due to increased missile strikes by the US targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in the tribal areas.
These have turned a sometimes ambivalent tribal population against the Pakistan military.
Analysts say the tribesmen see the strikes, which have claimed more lives of civilians than of militants, as contiguous with the military operation.
But US officials have continued to press for more action, painting doomsday scenarios for Pakistan.
The latest such warning comes from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said in India that al-Qaeda was planning to carry out attacks to provoke war with Pakistan.
But the Pakistan military appears to have its own views on the subject, and their say is likely to count the most.
 Pakistani troops hold their positions on a hill top in South Waziristan. |
Their latest decision is likely to sends shivers through all Western capitals which have a stake in Afghanistan.
For Washington, in particular, the military's U-turn will have far-reaching consequences.
Without Pakistani soldiers pressurising the Taliban in the tribal areas, it will be mission impossible for US forces in Afghanistan.
Diplomatic wrangling
Even with the additional 40,000 troops, it will not be possible to contain the insurgents.
With 2010 already being called a defining moment in the current conflict, the military has risked the all-out ire of the US with its decision.
But it appears to have thought out the move, given that it has gone public at a time when the US defence secretary is in Pakistan.
The military believes it has strong reasons not to move against the militants.
Many senior military officials have been angered by what they see are recent moves by the US and the UK to expand India's involvement in Afghanistan.
They see this as being specifically targeted against Pakistani interests.
There is also the matter of promised US aid to Pakistan, most of which has been delayed due to diplomatic wrangling.
US officials say much of the aid has been held up because of delays in processing visas for officials attached to the projects.
 Without Pakistani offensives, will it be mission impossible for US forces? |
But Pakistani intelligence officials say that many of these officials actually end up involved in activities "beyond their charter of duties".
In common parlance, its means the officials are seen as spies.
Extremely unhappy
The military's decision has also put the Pakistan government, with which it has been at odds of late, in an embarrassing position.
The military's unhappiness at the government stems from what it sees as its pandering to US demands at every turn.
One example which intelligence officials quote at liberty, is the manner in which US special forces personnel are allowed to enter and move around Pakistan without being documented by immigration.
Officials say the military is extremely unhappy with the interior ministry on this count.
The shaky PPP-led government, for its part, is too busy rolling from one political crisis to another to really take this matter in hand.
On a more direct note, Pakistan's military has also been demanding that the US give it more advanced helicopters and transfer its drone technology.
They say as the frontline state against the Taliban, such equipment is needed for greater success.
The US has, however, rejected these demands so far.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
U.S. plans flights to Afghanistan via Russian air: diplomat
2010-01-21 04:09:11
MOSCOW, Jan. 20 (Xinhua) -- The United States has planned to carry out 11 military cargo flights to Afghanistan across Russian air space, said U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beryle here on Wednesday.
Beryle also told the Ekho Moskvy radio station that five such flights so far have been completed, denying earlier reports that only one such flight occurred.
During a Moscow summit between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama last July, the two countries reached an agreement to let the U.S. military cargo to Afghanistan transit through the Russian territory and bypass troubled Pakistan.
The agreement will be extensively used this year, said the diplomat, as President Obama has declared major troop reinforcements to the Central Asia state.
Analysts said the reason behind Russia's cooperative attitude toward the U.S.-led military operation in Afghanistan was that terrorism posed a threat to Central Asia, and drugs were being transported to Russia from Afghanistan.
A two-front threat emerging for Pakistan
The Nation
ISLAMABAD – A nightmare security scenario for Pakistan seems to be emerging - that of a two-front military conflict. Pakistan is already facing an internal militancy aided and abetted from Afghanistan and is threatened with all manner of likely US boots actually coming into Pakistan. Already, the drone attacks on Pakistani soil have increased. For all these reasons, Pakistan has moved a large chunk of its forces away from its Eastern border with India and along the LoC, and moved them to the Western front along the international border with Afghanistan as well as into FATA.
Now India has upped the military ante against Pakistan after meetings between Indian officials and America’s Holbrooke and Gates. Hence we are seeing the unprovoked Indian military firing at Pakistani forces across the international border, the working boundary and across the LoC, which has resulted in death and injury for Pakistani soldiers. What can possibly be the Indian intent at this time to undertake such military adventurism? Had it been given some go-ahead by the Americans.
This new military provocation comes when there seems to have been a decision made by the British and Americans to give India a major military role in Afghanistan. The two allies are all set to spring this nasty decision onto Pakistan at the international conference on Afghanistan in London at the end of this month when it will be proposed that India train the Afghan National Army - something it is already doing at a small level covertly and on that pretext already has its operatives in Afghanistan. It is these operatives who are conducting the aid and assistance to militants within Pakistan.
In view of these developments, what are the immediate options for Pakistan which will protect its interests as well as signal an effective message to both the US and India?
First and most immediate, Pakistan needs to move its troops back to its Eastern front and cease operations in FATA. We need to distinguish between our militancy problem, which is certainly threatening and very real, but has multiple dimensions, and the misguided US ‘War on Terror’. On the Western front, it needs to realign its forces along the Chaman border area with Afghanistan where it is expected US boots may enter Pakistan on the ground.
Second, it needs to tell the US in no uncertain terms that it will not tolerate these Indian military incitements and may well up the ante also choosing its own time, place and type of response.
Third, Pakistan needs to categorically refuse to participate in the London Conference if the plan to train the Afghan National Army by India is even discussed informally. In fact, under the circumstances, if India participates in the Conference, Pakistan should consider the option of boycotting it. Let us see how far the US and UK get in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s active cooperation!
Fourth, it is time to demand that Indian operatives move out of Afghanistan and Indian consulates in Afghanistan along the border area with Pakistan be closed.
The fact that the Indian aggression has come immediately in the aftermath of the discussions between the Indians and visiting Americans including Defence Secretary Gates, and following on the heels of the visit to Kabul by India’s DG MI, shows only too clearly the Indo-US nexus in terms of presenting Pakistan with a possible two-front threat.
Posts
