Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Iran: A victim of terrorism

Another great opinion piece by Belen Fernandez. With the help of international traditional media & social media, the world has been brainwashed to blame the victims for their actions, while praising & wholeheartedly supporting the actions of oppressors.

As my prior blog posts have stated multiple times, double standards & lies are the norm of Global North / developed economies of North America & Western Europe. One of their citizens get hurt, the world has to come to a standstill, but thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghanis, Yemenis, Somalis, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Japanese, Palestinians, Nigerians, Nicaraguans, Iranians etc. can die but nary a peep from the media or governments. To add insults to injuries, those countries & those victims get blamed for their deaths.

While the permanent members of UN Security Council sells arms & ammunition around the world, like US did to Israel while it was relentlessly bombing Gaza, which is also known as, "the largest open-air prison in the world," or how UK & Canada are selling their arms & weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is using them to bomb innocent civilians in Yemen, but when Pakistan shared its nuclear technology with Libya & Iran, its top nuclear scientist was house bound & restrictions were placed on the country. While Iran has to pretty much "take off its clothes in public" to keep its nuclear technology & to get rid of economic sanctions, UN Security Council members are trying to out-sell each other in terms of selling their military technology to the whole world, just so more & more innocent civilians die each & every day around the world.

How do you think an Iraqi father would regard an American when he comes to hear Madeleine Albright saying that killing one / most / all of his children was "worth it" due to Iraqi economic sanctions of 1990's? Although, harming / killing an innocent person is wrong everywhere in the world, regardless of where that person lives, but showing no empathy, & even blaming the victims, for actions which he / she didn't commit in the first place, is far more worse. No compassion & empathy would lead to seething anger & then that anger would find a violent outlet & then that outlet would be called "terrorism".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"One should have a single, not a double, standard."

These were the (translated) words of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, speaking at a conference I recently attended in Tehran. His observation was in reference to the habit of the United States & Co of decrying terrorism but then applauding terroristic behaviour when it serves their interests.

US mastery of the double standard means that, for example, the word "terrorism" is dutifully applied to situations in which planes are flown into US buildings, but not to ones in which US warships shoot down Iranian passenger jets, killing everyone on board.

A look at reality

While Iran is portrayed in Western & Israeli circles as a relentless supporter of terrorism worldwide, the conference focused on a less politically convenient reality: that of Iran as a victim of terror.

According to Iranian calculations, more than 17,000 persons have perished as a result of terrorist operations in the country since the Islamic revolution of 1979. The majority of these were perpetrated by the anti-government Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK).

Casualties have included three-year-old Fatima Taleghani, who burned to death when MEK members set fire to her room, teenager Zeynab Kamayee, who was reportedly suffocated with her veil, and 35-year-old Dariush Rezaeinejad, one of five Iranian scientists assassinated in recent years - apparently with the help of the Israelis.
...


'Material support'

The US government has also demonstrated sympathy for select Iranian terrorists, albeit in a far less noble fashion. In 2012, the US state department delisted the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), despite reports of continuing terroristic activities.

Prominent journalist & constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald described the delisting as "more vividly illustrat[ing] the rot and corruption at the heart of America's DC-based political culture than almost any episode I can recall".

While still on the FTO list, Greenwald wrote, the MEK had thrown large sums of money at an array of Democratic & Republican personalities, journalists, & other opinion shapers, who then became advocates for the organisation.

Along with previous training sessions in the US for MEK operatives, Greenwald argued that such collaborative arrangements seemed to constitute "material support" for terrorism - a felony under US law.

But the US justice system prefers to reserve this crime for hapless Muslims, like Syed Fahad Hashmi, a US citizen & Brooklyn College graduate sentenced to 15 years in prison - following several years of pre-trial solitary confinement - for allegedly providing material support to al-Qaeda.

What was the exact nature of Hashmi's "support"? Having once provided temporary accommodation in London to a man who happened to supply al-Qaeda members with socks & rain ponchos.

The US on trial

Again, the term "double standard" comes to mind.

And it returns with a recent Wall Street Journal article titled: "Terror Victims Eye Thawing with Iran", which explains that "[o]ver the past two decades, terrorism victims have filed about 100 lawsuits against Iran in US courts", alleging Iranian sponsorship of attacks ranging from the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut to 9/11.

Citing testimonies from the victims' lawyers, the article notes that "lifting just the nuclear sanctions [against Iran] could free up billions of Iranian assets in Europe and elsewhere that victims may attempt to seize as part of their judgements".

The barracks bombing is regularly attributed to the Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah - which didn't officially exist at the time. If we follow the above line of reasoning, however, it appears that the US is eligible for a fairly infinite number of lawsuits - in Lebanon & beyond.

Not only did the US rush shipments of weaponry to Israel during its assault on Lebanon in 2006 - an affair that dispensed with approximately 1,200 human lives, most of them civilian - it also contributed financially & morally to Israel's sustained terrorism in Gaza via billions of dollars in annual aid & ceaseless repetitions of the mantra that Israel is engaged in self-defence.

Standard operating procedure

Other US hobbies, like drone strikes & imperialist wars, can also be pretty terroristic in nature. Furthermore, as California-based independent researcher Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich remarked during her presentation at the conference in Tehran: economic sanctions against Iran constitute a form of "UN-sanctioned terrorism" given their detrimental effects on the well-being of innocent civilians.

One of the more glaring examples of the ruthlessness of sanctions is, of course, Iraq. Reports in 1996 that half-a-million children had so far died as a result of the policy elicited the following response from then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "We think the price is worth it."

Indeed, when it comes to terrorising people, the "land of the free" beats the Islamic Republic, hands down. But the victory goes largely unreported in mainstream circles because double standards have become standard operating procedure.


Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Drones kill any chance of peace in Afghanistan

A good opinion piece. When the developed countries are not actively selling arms & weapons to developing countries, they are actively bombing them through drones. Of course, US is far ahead in this activity around the world, but others are not far behind, either.

As the writer plainly states that these drone strikes kill civilians (or as we call them, "collateral damage"), which in turn, angers the surviving relatives & neighbours of those killed, & hence, force those surviving loved ones to take up arms against foreigners. The words "collateral damage" brings an Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2002 movie in my mind of the same name, in which, his family is killed in a bomb blast & his family was "collateral damage" & how he wants to avenge their deaths. Anyway, so of course, in their seething hatred, the surviving family members will kidnap & kill any foreigner, be he/she is working on a humanitarian mission in that conflict zone.

The consequence of killing even one innocent person, be it in Afghanistan or Somalia or Syria or Iraq or Libya or Yemen, that it creates hatred & anger among the survivors & then, as General Stanley McChrystal (former US & NATO forces commander in Afghanistan), said: "for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies."

Since, the drones & drone strikes result in far fewer military casualties for the country which is using drones, it becomes a much more useful option. Coupling that option with the policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" only makes life hell for all people, innocent & guilty, alike, on the ground below. American military was using napalm 40 years ago to kill innocents in Vietnam & now using drones to destroy the lives of people on the ground in large balls of fire.

The irony is that after selling military wares, supporting authoritarian regimes (who use those weapons of mass destruction on their own people), & then also using drones to make lives of poor people even more miserable & hellish, people in the West very innocently claim that Afghanis, Yemenis, Somalis, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans etc. hate their way of living & want to destroy it.

As I have always blogged previously that the most simple solution for the developed countries to save their own countries from so-called "terrorists" & "terrorism" is become selfish, which essentially means, that stop selling arms & weapons to developing countries & stop intervening, militarily or non-militarily, in national matters of other countries. Since, you are keeping yourself to your own business, no one would then has any reason to bother you. After all, if terrorists are so hellbent on spreading Islam everywhere & want to kill anyone who is not a Muslim, then why Brazil, Argentina, Switzerland, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea etc. are not being attacked? They are all emerging or developed economies & are Christian-majority countries, but no one cares about these countries, because they keep to themselves. So, Mind Your Own Business is the perfect solution to end most, if not all, major conflicts in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The use of unmanned US drones in Afghanistan has stepped up since January. With the launch of the new US counterterrorism mission, Freedom Sentinel, the ongoing & intensifying drone campaign has reportedly killed around 400 people in Afghanistan over the last 6 months.

But insurgents are not the only ones being killed.

Targeted drone attacks kill scores of civilians & armed opposition forces alike. These strikes violate Afghan sovereignty & international law, & severely undermine human rights while underscoring the ongoing threat to civilian lives in Afghanistan. Yet, the Afghan national unity government remains silent on the issue.

Beyond the civilian casualties caused by these strikes, drones also fuel terrorism, increase anti-government sentiment &, as a result, increase recruitment opportunities for the armed opposition in Afghanistan.

Extrajudicial killings

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government must take seriously the issue of civilian casualties from US drone strikes & put an end to the extrajudicial killings of Afghans by the unmanned machines of our so called "strategic partner".

Over the past decade, US drone missions in Afghanistan were unilateral. Unlike Pakistan, the use of drones lacked the agreement of the country's leadership. The large number of civilian casualties in drone & air strikes caused increasing tensions between Hamid Karzai, the former Afghan president, & US officials.

So why has Afghanistan become the most heavily drone-bombed country in the world? What is the legal justification for the US' drone mission in Afghanistan when there is no mention of drones in its Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the US?

Since the establishment of the Afghan national unity government in Afghanistan, Ghani's government has given "American commanders a freer hand on night raids & air strikes", according to a recent New York Times report.

Recent attacks show that drone operators are now authorised by "eased" counterterrorism guidelines, which permit them to hit a target even without having "the knowledge of the identities of the individuals marked for death".

Despite the US administration's repeated announcements of the end of its combat mission, US forces in Afghanistan now have "a more aggressive range of military operations" - mostly drone missions & special operations.

Several attacks a week

Focused in the south & east of the country, US drones are hitting Afghanistan frequently, at a rate of one to several attacks every week. Nangarhar, Paktia, Paktika, Kunar, Nuristan, Khost, Farah, Helmand, & Logar are all provinces that have been targeted by US drone operations.

According to international & national media reports & the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, civilian casualties are involved in most of these incidents, but these go without any acknowledgement from the current Afghan government.

Some Afghan TV channels report misleading & misinforming stories on the "effectiveness" & the "role" of drones in Afghanistan. Early this month, according to Afghan MPs & media reports, a US drone strike in the Alisher district of Khost province southeast of Afghanistan, killed more than a dozen civilians, reportedly "members of two families".

On the condition of anonymity, a government official in Khost confirmed the killings to Pajhwok, an Afghan news agency.

The media office for foreign troops in Kabul also confirmed the attack with a routine addition that "reports about civilian casualties were being investigated".

As the Afghan national unity government continues to keep silent & neglects to send any delegation to investigate the incident, Afghan MPs & the former Afghan president have "strongly condemned" the strike in Khost.

Ending the secrecy

It is time to end the secrecy on the matter. The Afghan government should conduct its own investigation & assessment of each drone incident.

Now, as the US "war on terror" in Afghanistan increasingly becomes an open-ended conflict, reports suggest that the US will "maintain an aerial capacity beyond 2017 ... to conduct air strikes".

More US drone strikes means more civilian deaths for Afghanistan. These civilian casualties can severely risk the Afghan national unity government's legitimacy & sustainability.
...


As Ann Wright, the former American deputy ambassador in Afghanistan, put it, drone killings, "because of the number of civilian casualties", are "jeopardising US national security & creating large numbers of people who despise the United States".

The US administration & the Afghan government should take the advice of former US & NATO forces commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who once rightly said: "For every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies."


Aimal Faizi is an Afghan journalist & former spokesperson for former Afghan president, Hamid Karzai from 2011-2014.

How British weapons may have been used during Israel's 2014 attack on Gaza

One of the major roots / causes of these "terrorism" related incidents, if not the sole reason, is this direct & indirect supply of arms & weapons, by developed countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Russia & China) to developing & autocratically-ruled countries.

Now, this article has been published in a major newspaper from Britain & must be shared by thousands, thanks to social media, nowadays. Even if we assume that a Syrian or an Iraqi or an Afghani or a Yemeni or a Libyan or a Somalian or a Palestinian from Gaza or West Bank didn't have a clue about that rocket was made that killed all his family members, he may come to know about it through this article or through word of mouth or perhaps, even an "extremist" preacher, that that rocket, which wiped out my family & left me homeless was made in UK or US or Germany or France etc., then you can imagine how he would feel about that country.

As I have blogged previously that whenever this supply of arms & weapons around the world by developed countries would stop, the peace in the world would come about by itself. Spending billions of dollars on bombing campaigns in a far off land, against an enemy, which is radicalized due to these supply of weapons of death & destruction, is useless & completely fruitless.

The hypocrisy of European nations is laudable that they would arm Israel with their weapon technology on one hand, & then ban consumer products made in Occupied Territories under Israel.

Frankly, I think BDS movement (Boycotts, Divestment & Sanctions) is a useless move. What is a more effective move against Israel, against its illegal occupation? Banning a few consumer products & divesting out of a few investment portfolios or not supplying billion worth of arms & ammunition to Israel? Anyway, I digressed.

Essentially, business deals trump everything. GDP & exports from death & destruction is far more valuable than the life of a human being in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen & Palestine (Gaza & West Bank). Life of a human being is also as much important in France, US, UK, & other developed countries, but whenever "terrorists" strike in these countries, we need to think why some people, albeit "extremists", took this step. What we, ourselves, are doing, which might or might not be, radicalizing & pushing a few twisted individuals to take this drastic step? Are we involved somehow in hurting someone in their own countries? Are we, directly or indirectly, killing innocent people? Are we turning people, who may have never thought of taking up arms against us, into so-called "terrorists"?

The answers are actually very simple, lie bare & in the open. Us people in the West just have to look & examine our own actions without any predetermined bias to find the real roots of the problem & then we can end this problem of "terrorism" very easily & cheaply; by stopping the supply of all arms & weapons by developed countries to developing countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Government has been accused of ignoring its own evidence that British weaponry may have been used by Israel in its assault on Gaza last year after fresh arms deals worth £4m were approved by Britain within weeks of the conflict.

Figures seen by The Independent reveal that the UK gave the go-ahead for dozens of military exports to Israel, including components for drones & air-to-surface missiles, in the immediate aftermath of Operation Protective Edge, which claimed more than 2,000 lives, including those of hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

Campaigners said the exports showed that the Government was conducting “business as usual” in its arms sales to Israel & turning a “blind eye” to the risk that UK-made weaponry could be used in any fresh clashes between the Israelis & the Palestinians.

Last year’s bombardment provoked calls for Britain to halt all arms exports to Israel after ministers admitted they had found 12 instances where weapons containing British components may have been used in the Occupied Territory by Israeli forces.

The refusal of the Government to suspend these licences caused a split in the Coalition & led to the resignation of Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi, who said Britain’s stance during the air & sea assault had been “morally indefensible”. She said all arms sales should be stopped with immediate effect.

Ministers pledged last year to review all existing licences to Israel to assess the risk of British weaponry being used in the Occupied Territories & publish the results.

But new figures published ... in a report on arms exports show that Britain has in the meantime continued to sell weaponry worth millions to Israel, both directly & via third party countries including Germany, America & Italy.

Andrew Smith, spokesman for Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “More than 2,000 people died in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, & yet in the months immediately following the conflict it was business as usual for the UK Government & the arms companies it supports.

Even the government has admitted it’s highly likely that UK weapons were used against Gaza last year. Now it is turning a blind eye to its own evidence. These arms sales send a message that arms company profits & military contracts are more important than the human rights of Palestinians.”

In the three months between the end of hostilities in Gaza in August last year & the end of December, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) approved 32 military exports from Britain to Israel worth £3.97m. The first licence was granted on 1 September - just 6 days after the announcement of an Israeli ceasefire.

Some £2.5m of that total was for items going directly to Israel, including components for military radars, submarines & jet engines.

The remainder was for the incorporation of UK-made weaponry, including components for military pilots’ head-up displays & military combat vehicles, into products to then be re-exported to other destinations, including Thailand & United Arab Emirates.

The data, based on the Government’s own quarterly arms export statistics, also details 36 further licences granted for British components sent to destinations including Germany, Italy & United States for incorporation into weaponry which was then to be sold to Israel.

The material included parts for air-to-surface & surface-to-surface missiles, components for combat helicopters & tank turrets, & material used for the command & control of drones.

At least two of the 12 pre-existing arms licences which the Government now admits were for weaponry which may have been used in Gaza were sent to Israel via Germany & the US.

Campaigners argue that the latest exports contain similar material which could also be used by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) if hostilities recommence in the Occupied Territories.

The Independent revealed earlier this year that the Government also approved arms exports worth nearly £7m to Israel in the 6 months prior to Operation Protective Edge, which Tel Aviv said was necessary to halt rocket attacks from Gaza by Hamas fighters.

Ministers have previously defended Britain’s exports to Israel by saying the country has a right to self-defence & the UK only grants licences where it is satisfied material will not be used for “internal repression” or to “aggravate existing tensions or conflicts”.

But the report by CAAT, War on Want & the Palestine Solidarity Campaign alleges that Britain is flouting its own rules by continuing to allow the export of material which carries the risk of being used in any future Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

David Wearing, the author of the report & a researcher at London University, said: “Ministers’ claims that the UK enforces stringent controls on arms exports simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

Aside from the question of how individual pieces of UK-made kit are used, the approval of £4 million of military exports in the wake of Operation Protective Edge demonstrates a strong preference to maintain business as usual irrespective of what message this sends to Israel about its behaviour.”

Critics of Britain’s arms exports control system argue there are now repeated examples of the use of British-made weaponry in the Occupied Territories over the last 13 years, including the deployment of armoured personnel carriers & the use of F-16 fighters & Apache helicopters containing UK components.

The IDF’s Hermes drone was also deployed last year over Gaza. A version of the drone, used to pinpoint targets, contains components made by British companies but it is claimed this version was not used in Gaza.
...

The Government said its review of arms export licences to Israel, ordered last year, was "due to complete shortly" & insisted its monitoring of the situation in the Occupied Territories was taken into consideration when granting licences.

A spokeswoman said: "We will only approve equipment which is for Israel’s legitimate self defence & where we are satisfied it would be consistent with our human rights commitments & other international obligations.”

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Obama poster artist says president is a disappointment

Damn, I should've started this blog in 2008, right before Obama got elected for the first time. At that time, I used to be amused at people around me, in office & in my friend circle, that how everyone blindly bought into whatever Obama was selling at the time. Bunch of ignorant morons !!!

At that time, back in 2008, I was saying that Obama will disappoint you. He is not who he made you think he is. I saw this "hope dashed" 8 years ago.

So how did I predict that Obama will dash hope? Simple. There are very, very few organizations in the world that like radical & different ideas, & thus, promote those people within them, which question the established culture of the organization. Most organizations don't want anyone "disturbing" their culture. US government, & any other government in this world, is like that.

Obama, regardless of his upbringing & his personal values, he was required to toe the line of the government, if he ever wanted to become the President of US. He was required to abandon his own views, ethics, & morals to become President of US. If you want to become the President, you need to jockey up to groups whose ideals & objectives may very well clash with your own.

It doesn't matter how great Barack Obama is on the personal level. That doesn't affect anyone but him & his family alone. What does affect the whole world are his decisions, which were, for the past 7 years, similar to, if not as bad as, his predecessor, Mr. George Bush. I am still amazed how the Nobel committee awarded Obama the Peace prize. He hadn't, & still hasn't, done much in the name of peace. Guantanamo prison is still open. Destruction of Libya & the rise of ISIS in Syria & Iraq are the testament of how much of a failure Obama has been on delivering the mandate of world peace.

The only good legacy he might be remembered for years to come, is American affordable healthcare act or "Obamacare". That made life easier for many poor Americans. Other than that, financial mess he inherited from previous American leadership is still a mess, without any substantive controls, whatsoever. Personal privacy for Americans, & essentially, for the people around the world, became a joke under him. Weapons & arms deals with the corrupt leaders & despots continue on unabated. Violence in America itself has escalated multiple folds due to the rise in gun ownership, which he didn't, or perhaps, couldn't, do anything about. Working conditions & middle class in the American socio-economic strata are set to become worse, due to his relentless push for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

You may point out the fact that I am not mentioning Iran nuclear deal or opening up the American embassy in Cuba. These deals are actually not in the name of peace. These deals are in the name of business elites. Consumer markets for American international businesses are running out. American businesses are everywhere around the world, except, only in those places where they are not allowed to operate by law. Other than North Korea, Cuba & Iran were the only countries left where American businesses couldn't sell their wares. American businesses right away pushed in Cuba, as soon as, the borders open, & they are already ready to enter Iran.

Now, I am not saying all this, because I prefer Republicans or I think Republicans would've done a better job of running the country. Heck no. Republicans might have been the same, if not worse. Reason being that US government, as an institution, has a set culture & only people who rise through it are the ones who follow that culture by the book. You think differently & your chances of ever becoming an influential person in that organization are slim to none. Both political parties in America will only promote those people within them, who think alike. Therefore, regardless of which political party comes to power in 2016 or in 2020 or in 2024, foreign policies coming out of the White House won't change a bit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The man on the poster is still president. But the artist behind the poster has moved on.

Shepard Fairey, whose stencil portrait of Barack Obama with the caption “Hope” became the defining image of the 2008 presidential campaign, told Esquire magazine in an interview ... that the politician had not lived up to the propaganda.

Not even close,” Fairey said.

Obama has had a really tough time, but there have been a lot of things that he’s compromised on that I never would have expected. I mean, drones & domestic spying are the last things I would have thought [he’d support].”
...

Fairey is not a wholesale detractor of Obama, however.

I’ve met Obama a few times, & I think Obama’s a quality human being, but I think that he finds himself in a position where your actions are largely dictated by things out of your control,” Fairey told Esquire. “I’m not giving him a pass for not being more courageous, but I do think the entire system needs an overhaul & taking money out of politics would be a really good first step.”

As for whom he is supporting in 2016, Fairey said: “I mean nothing against Hillary [Clinton]. I agree with Hillary on most issues, but campaign finance structure makes me very angry.”

In 2014, Fairey released a poster that was evocative of the Obama image, but which featured a different, anonymous politician holding a fistful of cash.

The image was captioned: “Sold”.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

My rant on Refugee crisis (first one)

Public, nowadays, has ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).

This week's topic is Refugee crisis. Everyone is talking about it. Everyone is feeling "so sad." Why?

Where was this sadness when Israel killed children in Gaza last year?
 

Where was this sadness a few months back when Rohingya Muslims were dying in boats near the East Asian countries' seashores? (btw, is that issue resolved ... does anyone care anymore?)

Where was this sadness when US & its allies were bombing "children" in Iraq?

Where was this sadness when Afghanistan was getting bombed by NATO forces (which include all these Western countries) & small children were being killed there?

Why is Canada selling 15-billion Cdn $$$ of armoured trucks to Saudi Arabia, which will most likely be used against innocent Yemenis & its own public, esp. when Canada is supposed to be such a "kind" & "compassionate" country?

Weren't UK, France, Italy, & American forces were bombing indiscriminately Libyans a couple years back? Do you really think no kids must've died in those bombings?

(FYI, these refugees are not only from Syria, but from several war-torn countries; Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, & even Palestine).

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Don’t blame migrants – the West helped to create their plight

A great opinion piece by Yasmin Alibhai Brown.

A lot of it what she said I have been saying all along in my blog posts (June & July 2015), especially the ones about how the West is busy selling arms & weapons to the developing countries in Asia, Middle East, & Africa.

First, the Western countries looted current-developing countries through invasions, occupations, & wars. Then, they concede those territories to the locals but they still keep meddling in the internal politics of the regions of Asia, Africa, & South America. For them, it's a game of political chess to keep their superiority intact.

In the piece, the author, although, does concede that all the blame cannot be put on the shoulders of first world leaders, since a lot of the developing countries are ruled dictatorially by corrupt leaders. But whoever has read my previous blog posts may recall that I put the blame of those corrupt leadership on the first world leaders, too.

Those corrupt leaders of the developing world are propped up by the staunch support of the same first world leaders, who, so proudly, extoll the virtues of democracy, human rights, & free speech.

Saddam Hussein was a good friend of the American leadership. So was Bashar Al-Assad. So is current Saudi ruling family. And they are such good friends that American governments still censors the documents & reasons why Saudi royals were quickly shipped out of US, right after the 9/11 incident. UK government flies their flags at half mast at the death of Saudi King. Canada obliges to keep the sale of billions of $$$ of armoured vehicles secret, at the request of Saudi ruling family.

The main reasons the developed countries keep such despots in power in developing countries are:
1. developing countries keep transferring their financial wealth to these developed countries through arms purchases.
2. conditions in developing countries keep & stays horrible, so the intellectual brain drain starts to happen.
3. That intellectual brain becomes a "legal" slave in the West, working in jobs for which he/she is way overqualified but he/she works there because he/she needs money.
4. developing countries also lose their mineral & agricultural wealth (as mentioned in the piece, too)


All in all, this truth has to be spoken. Problem is that the majority of the population of the West either doesn't know or doesn't want to know how their governments have destroyed, & are still destroying, the developing countries. But ignorance is not the answer when comeuppance comes along.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



... . After years of ferocious migrant-bashing, the national psyche has been successfully reprogrammed: millions of our citizens truly believe that humans from the old Soviet Union, Africa, Asia & the Middle East are flocking to get at those gorgeous council flats & big, fat, state handouts.

So easy isn’t it? Just blame those who can’t answer back. Don’t think too deeply about why there is this movement of peoples & how they feel before, during & after they leave their homelands.

...

Most migrants carry that sense of loss, even those who went off voluntarily to seek better fortune. Those who have never felt the need or pressure to emigrate can’t empathise with them, for that would be a chink in their fortress mentality. Fear is a terrible thing. It depletes compassion.

To many Britons, the current crisis is disconnected from history, & from global geopolitics. Again, it is so much easier to think of “them” & “us”, & disregard Western culpabilities, past & present.

In 2011, David Cameron, on a visit to Pakistan, accepted that Britain was responsible for many of the world’s intractable problems. It was the first & only time I recall a British leader accepting that colonialism left fractures & stains which have led to discord & failed states. (Margaret Thatcher, as well as Tony Blair & Gordon Brown, extolled the Empire & the subjugation of millions.) Mr. Cameron was savaged by the right-wing press & Labour’s Tristram Hunt. Maybe that is why he never again spoke candidly about that history. Silence is the path of least resistance.

No, you can’t just blame white people for post-colonial chaos & failures. Since independence, leaders have almost all been incompetent, corrupt & callous. Dictatorships & one-party rule, profligacy & greed, have despoiled potentially productive nations, turning them into hopeless, dependent, unsustainable entities. But the case against old European imperialists is strong & indubitable.

Last week, one Drusilla Long had a letter in a newspaper about desperate & desperately unwanted migrants. She was raised in Ghana during British rule. “I believe [we should] return some of the immense wealth we all stole from these countries, such as gold, diamonds, etc, which we have long used to build up our own wealthy ‘fortress’ Europe,” she wrote.

Brave woman, saying the unsayable.

Then there is the continuing support this country gives to oppressive regimes, the arms we sell, & the wars we have launched in the past 20 years. Iraqis never chose to become resented refugees, nor did Afghans.

Libya is now the export depot for hungry, frightened, distressed people. The allies who bombed the place have gone & feel no obligation for the mess they left. Many ISIS insurgents are from Saddam Hussein’s old Baathist army. True, we did not intervene in Syria, but for decades Bashar al-Assad was propped up by us, as was his equally heinous father. Many of the migrants trying to get into Europe come from these places. They are hated perhaps because they remind us of our bad policies & actions. Are these then our noble British values?

When bigots tell me to go back to where I came from, I remind them I am here because the British government supported Idi Amin’s bid for power. A million or more black Ugandans fled or were killed. Some fled to the UK. Has Britain ever admitted this was a big mistake? ...

Among the flotsam & jetsam of wandering humans are “economic migrants” who are seen as the biggest threat of all. They, too, are victims of Western games & unending austerity measures. We know how that affects the vulnerable & should understand why people die trying to escape poverty.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) & World Bank have driven down spending on health & education across Africa & elsewhere. Developing world debt is used by the West to cut the cost of raw materials & steal resources. Privatisation is the condition for borrowing money. It stinks.

Anup Shah is the editor of the excellent www.globalissues.org. He writes about the unjust trading system. The West protects its interests & pushes poorer countries to supply materials, labour & goods at the lowest costs. To be a dumping ground, too.

The EU, IMF & World Bank must transform the system; our leaders need to tell more truths about the dispossessed. Xenophobia, withdrawal of welfare & gunboats won’t stop the tide of humanity coming to our shores. They come because they have no choice. But the West does.

Monday, August 3, 2015

'38 million people' internally displaced worldwide

The number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) have actually increased in the 21st century, instead of going down. This is the reality of the modern world, when conflicts & wars are increasing, destroying the lives of many. For these IDPs, modernity of the modern world has actually become a curse than a blessing.

Although, the organization mentioned in the article wants more diplomacy among countries & wants more countries to work towards peace, I believe it won't happen because it's not in the interests of the large multibillion $$$ defence companies which control the strings of the politicians. These companies, i.e. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE etc. want more conflicts so their products & services are in demand. Peace means no demands for their products. That's why, Islam forbade Muslims from investing in defence companies because they would never want peace in this world.

Anyway, so where is this modern world moving towards? From my vantage point, the future of this world looks more bleak than ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A new report has found that 38 million people have been displaced within their own country by confict or violence, with at least 11 million newly displaced in 2014 alone.
 
The global overview report, released on Wednesday by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) recorded a 15% increase, stating that the figures were a record high for a third year in a row.
 
Jan Egeland, the secretary-general of the NRC described the report as a wake up call for international diplomacy, reiterating that the figures are distinct from refugees who are forced to leave their countries.
 
"What it really is a damning verdict of international diplomacy, of the lack of good governance in countries, lack of regional cooperation," he told Al Jazeera from Geneva.
 
He said that conflicting governments should "sit down & discuss reconciliation & cooperation" with armed groups in order to "not pull in opposite directions, but pull in the same direction".
 
60% of all IDP's globally were in 5 countries: Iraq, South Sudan, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo & Nigeria.
 
Europe, for the first time in more than a decade, saw large numbers of displaced people - nearly 650,000 were displaced by the war in Ukraine.
 
'Deliberate politicisation'
 
The report highlights how 90% of all IDP's in the Middle East & North Africa regions were living in Iraq & Syria - with at least 2.2 million people in Iraq fleeing the violence propelled by the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant (ISIL) armed group.
 
Syria has the largest number of IDP's in the world with 7.6 million people - an outcome of the brutal civil war that broke out in the country in 2011.
 
The report also highlighted how long-lasting, or protracted displacement, contributes to this alarmingly high global total. In 2014, there were people living in displacement for 10 years or more in nearly 90% of the 60 countries & territories IDMC monitored.
 
The IDMC report also describes how displacement often reveals underlying structural challenges within a country, & how it can be prolonged by a government’s deliberate politicisation of the issue or its refusal to enter into a formal resolution of a crisis.
 
Volker Turk, UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, said that the staggering number of internally displaced people because of conflict & violence is a harbinger of movements to come.
 
"We know that more & more internally displaced have been forced to move within their country multiple times. The longer a conflict lasts, the more insecure they feel & when hopelessness sets in, many will cross borders & become refugees," he said.

And as we have seen in the recent past, for example in the Mediterranean, despair drives people to take their chances & even risk dangerous boat journeys. The obvious solution lies in an all-out effort to bring about peace in war-ravaged countries,” Mr Turk added.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Who is bombing whom in the Middle East?

Reading this piece from Robert Fisk amazed me that Muslims have dropped, & keep dropping, in a hole with no bottom. 3 of the first 4 paragraphs will confound you beyond your beliefs (I challenge you if you don't get confused with who is bombing whom). Muslims, who apparently follow Islam, killing each other, without showing any mercy, & mercy was the way of the beloved Prophet. They are not all bombing ISIS, but also bombing each other, like Egyptians bombing Libyans, & Saudis bombing Yemenis.

What's the point of praying taraweehs all Ramadan or reciting Quran with a very beautiful voice (because, that's very much mandatory ... sarcasm)?

What happened to the sanctity of a Muslim's blood?

How low is the value of blood of a Muslim?

But, hey, we, Muslims, gotta ask Snapchat to show the world how peaceful we Muslims are, by showing Mecca live all around the world, even though, the country where Mecca is located (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is indiscriminately spilling the blood of innocent Yemeni Muslims (just because, those Muslims are Shia).

And as this piece points out, who is rolling in the cash with all these indiscriminate bombings: the true "Lords of War"; weapons-manufacturers & defense companies. Companies, like Lockheed Martin, BAE, Raytheon etc. And, we, Muslims, are letting them do that to us.


I don't know what to cry about anymore: the state of Muslims' physical situation or how the West has made us Muslims blind to the fact that how we are completely willing to follow where & how the West leads us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Saudis are bombing Yemen because they fear the Shia Houthis are working for the Iranians. The Saudis are also bombing Isis in Iraq & the Isis in Syria. So are the United Arab Emirates. The Syrian government is bombing its enemies in Syria & the Iraqi government is also bombing its enemies in Iraq. America, France, Britain, Denmark, Holland, Australia & ... Canada are bombing Isis in Syria & Isis in Iraq, partly on behalf of the Iraqi government (for which read Shia militias) but absolutely not on behalf of the Syrian government.
 
The Jordanians & Saudis & Bahrainis are also bombing Isis in Syria & Iraq because they don’t like them, but the Jordanians are bombing Isis even more than the Saudis after their pilot-prisoner was burned to death in a cage. The Egyptians are bombing parts of Libya because a group of Christian Egyptians had their heads chopped off by what might – notionally – be the same so-called Islamic State, as Isis refers to itself. The Iranians have acknowledged bombing Isis in Iraq – of which the Americans (but not the Iraqi government) take a rather dim view. And of course the Israelis have several times bombed Syrian government forces in Syria but not Isis (an interesting choice, we’d all agree).
 
It amazes me that all these warriors of the air don’t regularly crash into each other as they go on bombing & bombing. ...
 
The sectarian & theological nature of this war seems perfectly clear to all who live in the Middle East – albeit not to our American chums. The Sunni Saudis are bombing the Shia Yemenis & the Shia Iranians are bombing the Sunni Iraqis. The Sunni Egyptians are bombing Sunni Libyans ... & the Jordanian Sunnis are bombing Iraqi Sunnis. But the Shia-supported Syrian government forces are bombing their Sunni Syrian enemies & the Lebanese Hezbollah – Shia to a man – are fighting the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s Sunni enemies, along with Iranian Revolutionary Guards & an ever-larger number of Afghan Shia men in Syrian uniforms.
 
...
 
And then, of course, there are the really big winners in all this blood, the weapons manufacturers. Raytheon & Lockheed Martin supplied £1.3bn of missiles to the Saudis only last year. But 3 years ago, Der Spiegel claimed the European Union was Saudi Arabia’s most important arms supplier & last week France announced the sale of 24 Rafale fighter jets to Qatar at a cost of around £5.7bn. Egypt has just bought another 24 Rafales.
 
It’s worth remembering at this point that the Congressional Research Services in the US estimate that most of Isis’s budget comes from “private donors” in ... Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE & Kuwait.
 
But blow me down if the Yanks are back to boasting. More than a decade after “Mission Accomplished”, General Paul Funk (in charge of reforming the Iraqi army) has told us that “the enemy is on its knees”. Another general close to Barack Obama says that half of the senior commanders in Isis have been liquidated. Nonsense. But it’s worth knowing just how General Pierre de Villiers, chief of the French defence staff, summed up his recent visits to Baghdad & Iraqi Kurdistan. Iraq, he reported back to Paris, is in a state of “total decay”. The French word he used was “decomposition”. I suspect that applies to most of the Middle East.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

With a $42 Billion defense budget, is Japan a hawk in dove's clothing?

An informative piece. I didn't know that Japan was a pacifist nation but then still spends $42 Billion on its defense budget & a naval force more powerful than China's.

South China Sea & Eastern Europe are the next 2 battlegrounds for US & its allies. With everyone beefing up their military muscles, this is not going to be a great world to be living in the next 10-20 years. There might not be another nuclear war, but more than enough armament at hand, politicians being pressured by military hawks to use that armament pile their countries have built up, & a decreasing war-time casualty rate due to drones will make it seem like a nuclear war happening all around the world.

Wishing for peace in this world is only that; a wish. The world may seem "modern" to a naïve person, but it seems to me, that humans are regressing towards a cavemen mentality. Technology has only made it easier to attack another human or nation, just like a club or any other piece of ancient war-time technology made it easier for a caveman to attack its fellow being.

The humans & hence, the world, are definitely not moving towards a bright future for this planet. Perhaps, that's why, the rich are exploring ways to emigrate from this planet (e.g. Virgin Galactic) & Hollywood keep peddling movies where the Earth has been abandoned because of environmental disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Japan’s identity as a pacifist nation, as defined by Article 9 of its constitution, is increasingly at odds with reality. The Japanese Naval Self-Defense Force is the second-most powerful naval force in the region, trailing only its close ally, the US Navy. Japan has the seventh-largest defense budget in the world; its Ministry of Defense is the largest department in the entire Japanese government.
 
Strategically, a strong Japanese military allows the US — a close ally of Japan’s — to maintain distance from any military confrontation with China over territorial claims. It deprives China of the argument that the US is neither a party to the dispute, nor native to the region. The problem for the US lies in convincing allies, especially South Korea, that an increasingly robust Japanese military does not risk a return to Japanese imperialism.
 
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, adopted in 1947, forbids Japan from having “land, sea, & air forces, as well as other war potential.” The article established Japan as a pacifist nation, but in 1950 change was already needed, as the US deployed its troops from Japan to Korea and left Japan defenseless. To counter this vulnerability, General Douglas MacArthur authorized the establishment of national defense forces to protect the Japanese home islands. Reinterpretations have continued ever since, to the point that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are an army, a navy & an air force in all but name.
 
For all of the reinterpretations, Japanese forces remained confined to Japanese home territories without much change until 1992. At that time, Japanese embarrassment over being unable to contribute anything but financial support to Operation Desert Storm led to the passage of a law reinterpreting Article 9 to allow the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to take part in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
 
In 2004, Japan sent troops to Iraq to conduct humanitarian relief, where they were only allowed to fire if fired upon, & were not permitted to come to the aid of other coalition troops under attack. The cloak of pacifism, though markedly smaller, still adequately covered all sensitive aspects of the JSDF. But in the last few years, most of the remaining cover has been pulled away.
 
Last year the Japanese government adopted a new law, reinterpreting Article 9 yet again, this time to allow for “collective self-defense.” Japanese forces can now be deployed to assist allies under attack. While the US & the Philippines welcomed this development, other countries in the region were less than enthusiastic. It is no surprise that China, which has long criticized Japan for not adequately acknowledging & repudiating its past atrocities, objected to this change. But a sharp negative response from US ally South Korea must have rattled US military planners. Even Australia, generally in lock-step with US defense policies, gave a tepid response.
 
Already, the widening scope of the Japanese military is changing the defense landscape in the region. Japan has negotiated agreements to cooperate with Vietnam & the Philippines in conducting naval exercises & patrolling disputed areas in the South China Sea, which should give China pause as it considers its next steps in the region.
 
These agreements continue to stretch the envelope of collective self-defense. Protecting allies from bullying is a far cry from aiding allies in a war. The US & Japan are walking a fine line, as the US encourages Japan to be a greater participant in defense issues, well beyond limits on collective self-defense expressed just months ago, while not raising the specter of a Japanese return to militarism.
 
Japanese Prime Minister Abe has long advocated changing the Japanese Constitution to allow Japan to become a “normal” nation, with a military matching its economic & diplomatic instruments of power. While he is unable to say it out loud, the christening of the Izumo warship last month has normalized Japanese naval power to a great degree. The Izumo is an indigenously developed helicopter-carrying destroyer, & the largest vessel in the Japanese fleet. The Japanese are careful not to call it a carrier, which would make it an offensive weapons system, but in size & capacity, it is very similar to a US Marine Corps’ helicopter carrier. While currently slated to carry only general purpose helicopters, the Izumo could be modified to handle attack helicopters, the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, or even the F-35B, the Marines’ vertical short takeoff & landing version of the new fighter. Configured in this way, the Izumo would be a clear match for China’s lone aircraft carrier.
 
Today, Japan’s cloak of pacifism has been reduced to little more than a fig leaf. The Japanese are developing capabilities that allow it to fight any adversary. The fig leaf will soon be gone.