NATO doubts Taliban can mount spring offensive

munaeem | 31 January, 2007 18:25

Via Canada.com :NATO doubts Taliban can mount spring offensive

Taliban militants are expected to step up their attacks in Afghanistan soon, but the militia has lost strength and does not have the capability to launch a "spring offensive," a NATO spokesman said Wednesday.

Instead, it will be NATO troops who will be launching the real offensive, Brig. Gen. Richard Nugee said, referring to upcoming military operations but giving no details.

In my opinion his assessment of the situation is wrong. They have been forced to retreat back because of mounting pressure from US on Pakistan. Sources say that their military capability is intact.

Portrait Of The CIA As An Artist

munaeem | 31 January, 2007 10:59

According to Frances Saunders, in her well-documented book, “The CIA and the Cultural Cold War,” the CIA financed and groomed the avant-garde art movement from which abstract expressionism, performance art and the other freak shows of the art world emerged. In the 1950s,... [read more]

Iraq’s colonial occupier, the US, denounces “foreign meddling”

munaeem | 31 January, 2007 10:57

Via World Socialist Web Site : Iraq’s colonial occupier, the US, denounces “foreign meddling”"In recent weeks US government and military officials, aided and abetted by the American media, have stepped up the war of words against Iran."As they did precisely four years ago, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the political and media establishment is attempting to build up a case for military action... [read more]

'US has no strategic interest in a united Iraq'

munaeem | 30 January, 2007 10:32

JAN 30 - Former US envoy to the United Nations John Bolton said in an interview published in France that the United States has "no strategic interest" in a united Iraq, according to a reports. Excerpts: Reuters report: The United States has no strategic... [read more]

Iran : A list of fresh threats

munaeem | 28 January, 2007 23:53

The president of Iran has issued a list of threats through Hussein Shariatmadari, Editor of the daily Kayhan, and a key spokesman for the radical Khomeinist faction.

"The Americans must be made to understand the horrible consequences of any foolish act He then listed a series of warnings:

*** The Islamic Republic would attack American and allied troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

*** The Islamic Republic will stop the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, depriving the global market of 24 million barrels each day

*** A storm of missiles will be unleashed against Israel, turning that country into "an earthly hell before they go to the real hell."

*** Arab countries allied to the US will see their very existence endangered.

*** The peoples of Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and "parts of Arabia" will be invited to state uprisings against their governments to take revenge from their rulers.

What does all this remind you of? The obvious answer is " Saddam Hussein and his delusions in 2003. The late Ba'athist leader was also confident that Arab divisions, Western rivalries, and the peculiarities of the democratic system in the United States would , in the end, shield his regime against any attack. Remakes of old movies, like " The Return of Tarzan", are seldom successful.

The same is true of a return of Saddam Hussein, this time with a beard and a blouson. Accusing the radical faction of insouciance, the conservative faction within the regime believes that the threat of war should be taken seriously.

Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, the standard-bearer of the conservatives, has told several meetings that unless the current trajectory is corrected, the regime was heading for war with the United States.

Rafsanjani's warning has been echoed by his protégés among the political mullahs, including former President Muhammad Khatami and former Speaker of the Islamic Majlis Mahdi Karrubi. The question is : will they be heard before it is too late?

Bush : We can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically

munaeem | 28 January, 2007 14:57

Via Huliq.com : U.S. Policy To Be More Aggressive Against Iranians In Iraq

"Some are trying to say that because we are helping ourselves in Iraq by stopping outside influence from killing our soldiers or hurting Iraqi people, that we want to expand this beyond the borders," he said. "That presumption is simply not accurate. We can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically."

How can you diplomatically solve problems when you are not willing to talk to Iranians? You rebuffed people's advice when they asked you to engage Iran. Your adamantine rigidity has cost America dearly.

What's needed is new thinking. Your belief that America's superior military might could just remake political reality wherever you wanted. That belief is now completely defeated.

You can't bully people when they aren't afraid of you. You have lost your political capital. You have lost your allies. You have lost the street. Now the only thing to do is stop digging an even bigger hole for Americans.

The actions of the present administration shows that they never wanted to solve the Iranian problem.

AFP reported in November , 2006:

" Iran has agreed to hand over records of its uranium enrichment work in a boost to UN efforts to determine whether Tehran seeks nuclear weapons, but diplomats and analysts said that more cooperation is needed."

David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who now heads the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security think tank, said that the new Iranian steps were "a big deal because the Iranians have been so uncooperative."

US double standard

munaeem | 26 January, 2007 08:37

Via International Herald Tribune: U.S. warns Iran to back off in Persian Gulf:

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, who was in the Middle East to outline specifics of new U.S. strategies for Iraq and Iran following a visit to the region last week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said:

"Washington would be a "willing partner" in support of civilian nuclear power programs in its six Gulf Arab allies, saying the Bush administration supports nuclear energy as a means to combat global warming."

Washington’s offer of support for civilian nuclear power programs in its six Gulf Arab allies displayed its double standard towards Iran.

It is morally reprehensible playing a double standard, condemning Iran for its nuclear program while offering help in building nuclear reactors for Arab countries.

Iran has a right under the NPT to enrich uranium for nuclear power fuel. It is doing so under IAEA inspection as is required

US : Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs.

munaeem | 24 January, 2007 10:19

Via International Herald Tribune :U.S. warns Iran to back off in Persian Gulf

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs,was in the Middle East to outline specifics of new U.S. strategies for Iraq and Iran.

But the audience of Dubai-based diplomats and analysts appeared dismayed by Burns' tough talk on Iran. Some complained that U.S. actions were already threatening regional stability and asked the American diplomat to sort out Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict before turning attention to Iran.

Response from Arab Diplomat:

"What we are not interested in is another war in the region," Mohammed al-Naqbi, who heads the Gulf Negotiations Center, told Burns. "Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran. Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess."

Please visit Munaeem's Blog for More Commentary

Ban Ki-moon following in Bush's footsteps

munaeem | 22 January, 2007 21:19

The United Arab Emirates' Al Khaleej said it appears the new UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has adopted President Bush's concerns and demands as he promised to accelerate reforms demanded by Washington in the UN and called on helping Iraq.

The pro-government daily added in its editorial that according to Ban, his main concerns are also related to Darfur, as well as the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. "And thus, the new secretary-general has worn the American lenses regarding most global issues," it remarked.

The mass-circulation paper complained the role of the UN organization has in recent years been marginalized in allowing its member states to express themselves and has been subservient to the whims of the rich and powerful states, especially the US.

"The UN is not just a few countries or a few issues," it noted, "it is an advanced vision to how the world should look politically, economically, culturally, and security." The demand for some countries to adopt democracy should start within the UN organization, so that its policy is not dictated by just one or more powerful states, it said.

"And dealing with growing violence requires a comprehensive vision ... For violence is born out of wrong policies, constant injustices, and unjustified wars," it added.

Iran's President Did Not Say "Israel must be wiped off the map"

munaeem | 21 January, 2007 10:24

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map".

Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as this article will prove.

BACKGROUND:

On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism". Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.

Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site
http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

Iran to conduct missile war games

munaeem | 21 January, 2007 07:08

According to reports , Iran will carry out war games near near Garmsar city, about 60 miles southeast of Tehran on Sunday.

AP reports that Iran will test Zalzal and Fajr-5 missiles in the war games. These are short-range missiles.

Earlier in November Iran test-fired dozens of missiles — including the Shahab-3 that can reach
Israel.

Last year Iran conducted three large-scale military exercises. It tested "ultra-horizon" missile and Fajr-3 missile. These missiles can evade radar and use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously.

US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

munaeem | 19 January, 2007 12:09

Russian paper Pravda reports :

"n yet another shocking prelude towards becoming a Total Police State, Russian Intelligence Analysts are reporting today that the American War Leaders have issued orders to the United States Military Northern Command authorizing the jailing, and military tribunals, for any American citizen critical of the 'war effort'.

"These reports state that the American President has 'lost his confidence' in the American Judicial System and has further ordered his War Cabinet to begin attacking civilian judges, and as we can read as confirmed by the MSNBC News Service in their article titled "Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy", and which says
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

Full story: english.pravda.ru

Abolishing the Muslim Brotherhood: A Big Mistake

munaeem | 19 January, 2007 08:07

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed writes in the Al-Sharq al-Awsat (English):

"Abolishing the Muslim Brotherhood, a political, ideological, social and economic trend is somewhat impossible even if the Egyptian president endorses such a decision himself."

"The Muslim Brotherhood is not a company whose activities can be stopped at the order of the government; rather the movement represents an oppositional ideology, or a number of groups of society consisting of 70 million people, characterized by dynamism and plurality."

"One must agree with the state’s rejection to the opportunistic methods of the movement that exploits religion to raise money, win votes, provoke feelings and divide society. The exploitation of religion in politics is unacceptable unless that society accepts division based on religion."

"The government could have codified partisanship and freed it from the exploitation of religion, imposing conditions on membership and opening the door to complaints whenever a violation takes place within parties."

"As for any attempts to abolish a historical, deep-rooted and popular movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood, these will undoubtedly fail. Such a move would increase confrontation and weaken the value of political reform that has characterized the era of President Hosni Mubarak."

Iranian Involvement in the Iraqi Civil War

munaeem | 18 January, 2007 16:03

While the United States and its Coalition partners have been focusing on countering the Sunni-led insurgency, the Shiite militias have grown not only in social, political and military strength, but also in external backing. Although rumors circulated at the onset of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Iran was aligning itself with the political parties in Kurdish and Shiite populated areas, little examination let alone counter actions were taken to validate the claims. Since then, Iran's presence in Iraq has only grown. Last week, for instance, five Iranians were arrested in the Iraqi city of Irbil for suspected ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - Qods Force (IRGC-QF).

In keeping with the official U.S. policy toward Iran, the Coalition's position on the activities of the IRGC is that it has been providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack Coalition forces. If, in fact, the reality of the growing sectarian violence in Iraq becomes a full-scale civil war, as many experts have suggested, a thorough analysis of external forces operating behind the political and personal militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade, must be taken for the Bush administration's new "surge" tactic to be effective.

US policies breed terrorism

munaeem | 18 January, 2007 14:05

A commentary in the London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat said that many Arabs have criticized how US policy has hurt "our causes, such as the Palestinian, and enflamed dangerous sedition, such as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently in Somalia.

"Now, it added, "we want to be served by giving the Americans the advice that their president is leading them and their political, economic, and military interests to exhaustion."

The Saudi-owned paper insisted that President Bush has pulled his armies, government, and his people's resources to a bloody swamp under the slogan of fighting terrorism, stressing that the state under Saddam Hussein was free of Al Qaeda until the American occupation of Iraq without international approval.

And now, it complained, the United States is repeating the same scenario in Somalia with its bombs. It argued that "moderate voices" in Somalia's Islamic courts have become "hoarse," as have the voices of eastern and western advice to America, in repeating that the Taliban model has its own Afghan particularity and that each country has its own situation that cannot implement the Afghan Taliban model on other Islamic groups in Somalia or elsewhere.

"And yet America is chasing the Islamic courts to force them to eventually adopt the ideas of Al Qaeda and jihad," it said, adding that it did not doubt that the American war on Somalia's Islamic courts will lead the latter to, in fact, join Al Qaeda.

Petition to Amazon re Carter's book

munaeem | 17 January, 2007 20:40

Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has stirred up activity by the Jewish lobby as never before, with the latest action being the resignation of 14 members from the Carter Center. This makes this petition to Amazon for its unprecedented treatment of Carter's book all the more important. Please consider signing it, if you have not yet done so, and passing it on to your own mailing lists (More)

Rice lobbies Arabs for backing in Iraq

munaeem | 17 January, 2007 14:08

Arab allies gave lukewarm support to Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice's appeal. She made an appeal to her US allies in the region to support the Iraqi government.

Full story: news.yahoo.com

They wished success for the President' Bush's new plan.. However , they expressed reservations, whether Iraqi government would be able to fulful its obligations.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal briefed her about the relationship between Shiites and Sunni in Iraq. They lived together peacefully for many centuries there. But their relationship has strained due to sectarians violence.

"I cannot for the life of me conceive that a country like that would commit suicide," said al-Faisal, adding that he prefers not to speculate about he called the "dire consequences" of a Sunni-Shia civil war.

Arab diplomats doubt that surge can help to break the cycle of violence. Many in the Arab world profoundly distrust al-Maliki's government, believing it is serving Iran's interests at the expense of Sunnis

Commentary : USA Republicans and Democrats working for electoral gains

munaeem | 17 January, 2007 14:06

The United Arab Emirates' Al Khaleej said the US Republicans and Democrats are both working for political and election gains through Iraq.

The pro-government daily added in its editorial that Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq came contrary to recommendations by his top military leaders who realize that this would lead to more losses and deterioration.

"The American president's decision goes against the winds of American public opinion that prefers to withdraw their forces," it said, insisting the Bush decision renews support for the extremists in the Republican Party and reflects Bush's own fanaticism and obstinacy.

The "extremists" supporting Bush's escalation in Iraq are seeking election in top positions in the US, the daily argued, "and the Democrats' moves to confront this strategy stem from political, not national, calculations."

"If they were based on national calculations, the Democrats' position would be unified and based on military advice on how to work, as well as on popular support," it suggested. "But the eyes of the partisans are focused on the next elections and how to win. And in the process of this power struggle, the American reputation declines and Iraq is being destroyed."

Sunnis blast hanging of 2 Saddam aides

munaeem | 16 January, 2007 06:40

The decapitated body of Barzan Ibrahim have angered Iraqi Sunnis.

The government video , which was shown to the journalists, was blurred. It showed him lying on his chest , while the severed head lay a few yards away.
According to witnesses, he looked tense.

"I did not do anything," he was quoted as saying. "It was all the work of Fadel al-Barrak." Al-Barrak ran two intelligence departments in Saddam's feared Mukhabarat.

Iraqi officials were trying to dispel the impression that his body was mutilated.

The mourners , who was gathered at the funeral were very angry. They were cursing the government. They were holding arms and firing in the air.

Sharon Warned Bush

munaeem | 13 January, 2007 14:48

Sharon Warned Bush
The Strategic Interest

Yossi Alpher | Fri. Jan 12, 2007

. . .Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor
supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was
Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its
invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing
damn the United States in Arab eyes.

But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no
uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words —
revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed
warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute
threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons
of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised
Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who
was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq
invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush
that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on
occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy
in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab
world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy.
And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which
will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally,
Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave,
but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the
American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by
regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s
borders.

Full text available by clicking on the link below.

http://www.forward.com/articles/sharon-warned-bush/

Press savages Bush's Iraq plan

munaeem | 12 January, 2007 14:39

President Bush's new strategy in Iraq is given a clear thumbs down by many commentators in the international press.

Many believe sending in more US troops will only fuel the violence, with several comparing the situation to the escalation of the Vietnam War.

Other papers describe the president's latest plan as "too little, too late".

(More)

Wise and Powerful Americans

munaeem | 11 January, 2007 21:38

A Chicago , Illinois , radio station recently conducted a live survey on a man called Barack Obama.

Question 1: Do you think Barack Obama is a dangerous terrorist?

Calls flooded to the radio station and the listeners unanimously, and assertively, agreed that Barack Obama was a dangerous terrorist and that the US military should relentlessly track him down until he was killed.

Question 2: Which country is Mr Obama the President of? Is it Sudan, Algeria , Egypt or Saudi Arabia ?

Most listeners confidently replied one of these countries, with a majority opting for Algeria .
Obviously, the term Islamist was born in Algeria .. So where else could Barack Obama be living other than in Algeria ?

Well, it turns out that Barack Obama is the US Senator for Illinois and Chicago (where the survey was conducted) is a large city in the state of Illinois ( in fact, it is one of the largest cities in the United States).

So if these wise and powerful Americans do not even know who their own Senator is and consider him as a dangerous terrorist, why are we expecting them to understand what is happening in Iraq or Palestine, or anywhere else for that matter ?

Please give them a break!

Opinion : Will Surge Strategy work ?

munaeem | 11 January, 2007 18:34

With U.S. President George W. Bush's new Iraq strategy unveiled, it is clear that the administration is running out of options. The "surge" policy that will now be implemented is an attempt to somewhat stabilize the situation in Baghdad.

This is the most that the new policy can hope for -- temporary stabilization -- because a surge in troops does little to address the issues that are fomenting the insurgency. Once the surplus soldiers are called back, or once the insurgents adapt to the increased numbers, attacks will escalate again and Washington will be in the same position that it is in now.

A previous surge in troop levels in the Baghdad region was launched in mid-June 2006, as part of Operation Together Forward, but, after minor initial success, the move actually produced an increase in sectarian violence. After the initial surge was deemed insufficient to reverse this trend, an additional 3,700 troops were sent to Baghdad, but again this only led to further increases in violence.

According to the Iraq Study Group, "The results of Operation Together Forward II are disheartening. Violence in Baghdad -- already at high levels -- jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties."

Iraqi Insurgents have acquired Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile

munaeem | 11 January, 2007 17:58

AP reported that insurgents had acquired Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile called Strela. They bought these missiles through black market in Romania.

What an alarming development!

American forces will now confront enemy, who are better equipped.

According to reports, a U.S. Air Force F-16 went down in Anbar province on November 27. The plane was providing support to the troops in action. The US army denied this incident. However, a spokesman for the Baath party , claimed their fighters shot the plane down.

Khudair al-Murshidi, the spokesman for the Baath party, told AP ,”We have stockpiles of Strelas and we are going to surprise them (the Americans).”

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem

munaeem | 10 January, 2007 21:14

Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq. (More)

My Views on News