Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.to ANWAR Don’t mess with BTN I HAVE MADE SODOMY National Civics Bureau (BTN) training modules as in the current form

Dr M sees nothing wrong with BTN courses

On Anwar's suggestion to have the general election monitored by independent observers from Australia, the former premier takes a swipe at the opposition leader for having more faith in the 'white man' than the Malays.

Dr M: Don’t mess with BTN

A.G OFFICE FRAME ANWAR FOR SAYING 'GEDAH ' SENT HIM TO 7YEARS NOW WITH ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TO SENT NAJIB TO JAIL FOR ABUSE OF POWER

No need to revamp BTN, says Dr Mahathir. —

A VULTURE NAMED MAHATHIR WITH LINGAM displayed contempt for the rule of law.His frontal assault on the judiciary in 1988 an embarrassment for nation

MAHATHIRIFICATION OF JUDICIARY LEAD TO BASTARDIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY UNIMPEDED & UNIMPEACHABLE?

THANKS TO ZORROW YOUR ARE GREAT

TUN MAHATIR’S HIDDEN HAND IN High-level conspiracy to suppress government’s involvement in PKFZ

Part1, The treachery of the invertebrate Tun Dr Mahathir: An Islamic administration must respect laws what about your administration for 22years?

part2 YOU MAHATHIR THE ‘NECESSARY EVIL IN HISTORY OF MALAYSIA WHO DESTROYED THE JUDICIARY MERE ILLUSION TO HOODWINK THE RAKYAT

YOU SEE THE DEFERENCE BETWEEN TUN MAHATIR AND SAUDARA ANWAR IBRAHIMAnwar’s Bridging Ability Anwar urges patience in bid to remove gov’tMahathir CAUGHT WITH HIS UNDERWEAR DOWN.on Ananda’s yacht

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 6 — There is no need to revamp National Civics Bureau (BTN) training modules as in the current form, they were fine for instilling the patriotic spirit among Malaysians, said Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

why is that TUN MAHATHIR likes ORAL SEX with PAKATANEVEN AFTER WARNING FROM Muhyiddin Yassin

The former prime minister was also of the opinion that the BTN curriculum had helped foster unity as the courses conducted by the agency were attended by Malaysians of all races.

Malays are always asking for handout but their are ripping their nation off with billions

“I do not see any reason why the modules have to be revamped... I think it is better to retain the modules,” he told reporters after opening the World Aids Day 2009 here today.

Prior to this, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz had said that BTN training modules would be revamped to better reflect the 1 Malaysia concept introduced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The matter came into the spotlight when Pakatan-ruled Selangor recently prohibited state civil servants and students of higher educational institutions owned by the state from attending BTN courses, claiming that they were an indoctrination process by the Barisan Nasional government and aimed at brainwashing Malaysians to hate opposition parties.

Commenting further, Dr Mahathir said he too had given talks at courses organised by the BTN and among the subjects touched on were Malaysian history.

“Sometimes, people cannot understand the underlying value of BTN courses. I do not see anything bad about it, it explains the nation’s history,” he said.

Asked on Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s call for independent observers from Australia to monitor the next general election in the country, Dr Mahathir said: “If it is the white man, he will trust. If its Malays, it is otherwise.”

On the government’s plan to introduce the goods and services tax (GST), he said a comprehensive study must be made on it so as not to burden the people.

However, he said it was needed in the long term as the country had to find alternative sources of revenue and not be overly dependent of the petroleum sector. — Bernama

ANOTHER CASE UNDER THE OSA FOR THE IGP TO NFA

Politicians indicates that corruption has seeped into administrative machinery, politics, judiciary and police. God forbid if a citizen of Malaysia has to stand up for himself against these forces, he is a worthless street-dog unless he has power, money or influence. The police is the only face which millions of MALAYSIANS see daily, even when they don’t have to deal with corrupt government or judiciary. Are your streets safe from the licensedROSMAH’S goons ? THE TAXIDRIVER PICKED the jilted GHOST Atlantuya RELATES TO HIM WHAT REALY HAPPEN ROSMAH SNATCH NAJIB FROM HIS FIRST WIFE I WANT TO SNATCH HIM FROM HER BUT SHE blew me up with c4 ON VICTORY, CONSENSUAL LEADERSHIP AND REVERSION TO FORM WRITTEN BY RAZALEIGHHAMZAH FEBRUARY 23, 2009 AT 6:10 PM I WAS RECENTLY ASKED TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS FOR AN AUSTRALIAN NEWS PROGRAMME:REJECT MR. NAJIB,THE MOST HIGH-PROFILE SCANDAL TO TARNISH MR. NAJIB’S REPUTATION IS THE MURDER OF THE MONGOLIAN WOMAN, ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU, THE MISTRESS OF MR. NAJIB’S FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER. HER LIFE AND DEATH, A MIX OF SOAP OPERA AND HORROR MOVIE, HAVE CAPTIVATED AND SHOCKED THE PUBLIC. PROSECUTORS SAY MS. SHAARIIBUU WAS KILLED IN OCTOBER 2006 BY GOVERNMENT COMMANDOS WHO ALSO SERVE AS BODYGUARDS TO THE COUNTRY’S TOP LEADERS. MR. NAJIB HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME, BUT LAWYERS SAY THE HANDLING OF THE CASE HAS BEEN IRREGULAR AND CRITICIZE THE PROSECUTION FOR FAILING TO CALL MR. NAJIB TO TESTIFY. WHEN SHE WAS MURDERED, MS. SHAARIIBUU WAS REPORTEDLY SEEKING HER SHARE OF A COMMISSION — THE OPPOSITION CALLS IT A BRIBE — WORTH €115 MILLION, OR $155 MILLION, PAID BY A FRENCH COMPANY AS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT’S DEAL TO BUY SUBMARINES. MR. NAJIB, WHO IS DEFENSE MINISTER AS WELL AS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, HANDLED THE SUBMARINE PURCHASE. THE HUGE SIZE OF THE COMMISSION — ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE SUBMARINES — IS NOT BEING INVESTIGATED DESPITE AN OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT THAT IT WAS MADE TO A COMPANY LINKED TO MR. NAJIB’S AIDE, WHO WAS ACQUITTED IN CONNECTION WITH MS. SHAARIIBUU’S MURDER.

This means these two army officers were in the home of the then Deputy Prime Minister for about eight hours during the time Altantuya was supposed to have been murdered. Why they were there during those eight hours and who these two army officers are has not been revealed. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin The Malaysian government says Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered between 10.00pm on October 19th and 1.00am on October 20th, 2006. That was the charge against Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and that was what they were pronounced guilty of. At 10.01pm on 19th October 2006, two unnamed army officers went to Najib Tun Razak’s house, according to log entry 6494 in the police guard book. (See log 1a and log 2a below). These same two unnamed army officers left Najib’s house at 6.05am on 20th October 2006, according to log entry 6498. (See log 1b and log 2b below). The purpose of the visit was never clarified. This means these two army officers were in the home of the then Deputy Prime Minister for about eight hours during the time Altantuya was supposed to have been murdered. Why they were there during those eight hours and who these two army officers are has not been revealed. From 10.01pm the night Altantuya was murdered until 6.05am the following morning, two army officers visited the Deputy Prime Minister and/or his wife. This is certainly a most odd time to visit a Deputy Prime Minister and/or his wife in their home. And what does one do for eight hours in someone’s home during the time most people would be fast sleep? According to Fauzi, a driver, Rosmah Mansor left the official residence of the Deputy Prime Minister in Putrajaya at 6.48am on 19th October 2006 using car registration number WLQ 11 to return to her private home in Taman Duta. The car odometer reading was 86,197. That same evening, Rosmah attended a function near the Tabung Haji building in Jalan Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur She did not return home until 11.20pm later that night, according to Fauzi. The next day, 20th October 2006, Rosmah left her official residence in Putrajaya at 6.32am using the same car bearing registration number WLQ 11 to, again, return to Taman Duta. She also ran a few errands and did not return to Putrajaya until 1.01am the following morning. The odometer reading was 86,315. On the third day, Rosmah repeated the itinerary. She left Putrajaya at 6.40am to return to her Taman Duta home and to run some errands and did not go back to Putrajaya until 9.34pm that night. The odometer reading was 86,550. Over three days, Rosmah travelled more than 350 kilometres to shuttle from Putrajajaya to Taman Duta, plus to some other places in between, according to the records. I suggest the IGP investigate how these 'officials secrets' managed to leak out and whether the Official Secrets Act (OSA) has been breached. Or maybe the IGP would rather bury the whole issue and file it under No Further Action (NFA) to save the Prime Minister and his wife from having to answer some very embarrassing questions. Hmm...I wonder who these two unnamed army officers are and whether they were really at the Deputy Prime Minister's house those entire eight hours or whether they sneaked out and in again without any 'official record'. Ooh, I just love the OSA that protects the wrongdoer and instead sends the whistleblower to jail. Log 1a Log 2a Log 1b Log 2b Police Log 19th-20th October 2006

Preventing Palestinain Bantustans:Unilateral Declaration Of Statehood

From a rumor, to a rising murmur, the proposal floated by the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) Ramallah leadership to declare Palestinian statehood unilaterally has suddenly hit center stage. The European Union, the United States and others have rejected it as “premature,” but endorsements are coming from all directions: journalists, academics, nongovernmental organization activists, Israeli right-wing leaders (more on that later). The catalyst appears to be a final expression of disgust and simple exhaustion with the fraudulent “peace process” and the argument goes something like this: if we can’t get a state through negotiations, we will simply declare statehood and let Israel deal with the consequences.

But it’s no exaggeration to propose that this idea, although well-meant by some, raises the clearest danger to the Palestinian national movement in its entire history, threatening to wall Palestinian aspirations into a political cul-de-sac from which it may never emerge. The irony is indeed that, through this maneuver, the PA is seizing — even declaring as a right — precisely the same dead-end formula that the African National Congress (ANC) fought so bitterly for decades because the ANC leadership rightly saw it as disastrous. That formula can be summed up in one word: Bantustan.

It has become increasingly dangerous for the Palestinian national movement that the South African Bantustans remain so dimly understood. If Palestinians know about the Bantustans at all, most imagine them as territorial enclaves in which black South Africans were forced to reside yet lacked political rights and lived miserably. This partial vision is suggested by Mustafa Barghouthi’s recent comments at the Wattan Media Centre in Ramallah, when he cautioned that Israel wanted to confine the Palestinians into “Bantustans” but then argued for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood within the 1967 boundaries — although nominal “states” without genuine sovereignty are precisely what the Bantustans were designed to be.

It has become increasingly dangerous for the Palestinian national movement that the South African Bantustans remain so dimly understood. If Palestinians know about the Bantustans at all, most imagine them as territorial enclaves in which black South Africans were forced to reside yet lacked political rights and lived miserably. This partial vision is suggested by Mustafa Barghouthi's recent comments at the Wattan Media Centre in Ramallah, when he cautioned that Israel wanted to confine the Palestinians into "Bantustans" but then argued for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood within the 1967 boundaries -- although nominal "states" without genuine sovereignty are precisely what the Bantustans were designed to be.

Apartheid South Africa’s Bantustans were not simply sealed territorial enclaves for black people. They were the ultimate “grand” formula by which the apartheid regime hoped to survive: that is, independent states for black South Africans who — as white apartheid strategists themselves keenly understood and pointed out — would forever resist the permanent denial of equal rights and political voice in South Africa that white supremacy required. As designed by apartheid architects, the ten Bantustans were designed to correspond roughly to some of the historical territories associated with the various black “peoples” so that they could claim the term “Homelands.” This official term indicated their ideological purpose: to manifest as national territories and ultimately independent states for the various black African “peoples” (defined by the regime) and so secure a happy future for white supremacy in the “white” Homeland (the rest of South Africa). So the goal of forcibly transferring millions of black people into these Homelands was glossed over as progressive: 11 states living peacefully side by side (sound familiar?). The idea was first to grant “self-government” to the Homelands as they gained institutional capacity and then reward that process by declaring/granting independent statehood.

The challenge for the apartheid government was then to persuade “self-governing” black elites to accept independent statehood in these territorial fictions and so permanently absolve the white government of any responsibility for black political rights. Toward this end, the apartheid regime hand-picked and seeded “leaders” into the Homelands, where they immediately sprouted into a nice crop of crony elites (the usual political climbers and carpet-baggers) that embedded into lucrative niches of financial privileges and patronage networks that the white government thoughtfully cultivated (this should sound familiar too).

It didn’t matter that the actual territories of the Homelands were fragmented into myriad pieces and lacked the essential resources to avoid becoming impoverished labor cesspools. Indeed, the Homelands’ territorial fragmentation, although crippling, was irrelevant to Grand Apartheid. Once all these “nations” were living securely in independent states, apartheid ideologists argued to the world, tensions would relax, trade and development would flower, blacks would be enfranchised and happy, and white supremacy would thus become permanent and safe.

The thorn in this plan was to get even thoroughly co-opted black Homeland elites to declare independent statehood within “national” territories that transparently lacked any meaningful sovereignty over borders, natural resources, trade, security, foreign policy, water — again, sound familiar? Only four Homeland elites did so, through combinations of bribery, threats and other “incentives.” Otherwise, black South Africans didn’t buy it and the ANC and the world rejected the plot whole cloth. (The only state to recognize the Homelands was fellow-traveler Israel.) But the Homelands did serve one purpose — they distorted and divided black politics, created terrible internal divisions, and cost thousands of lives as the ANC and other factions fought it out. The last fierce battles of the anti-apartheid struggle were in the Homelands, leaving a legacy of bitterness to this day.

How the Muslims of Palestine became a minority: Apartheid South Africa's Bantustans were not simply sealed territorial enclaves for black people. They were the ultimate "grand" formula by which the apartheid regime hoped to survive: that is, independent states for black South Africans who -- as white apartheid strategists themselves keenly understood and pointed out -- would forever resist the permanent denial of equal rights and political voice in South Africa that white supremacy required. As designed by apartheid architects, the ten Bantustans were designed to correspond roughly to some of the historical territories associated with the various black "peoples" so that they could claim the term "Homelands." This official term indicated their ideological purpose: to manifest as national territories and ultimately independent states for the various black African "peoples" (defined by the regime) and so secure a happy future for white supremacy in the "white" Homeland (the rest of South Africa). So the goal of forcibly transferring millions of black people into these Homelands was glossed over as progressive: 11 states living peacefully side by side (sound familiar?). The idea was first to grant "self-government" to the Homelands as they gained institutional capacity and then reward that process by declaring/granting independent statehood.

Hence the supreme irony for Palestinians today is that the most urgent mission of apartheid South Africa — getting the indigenous people to declare statehood in non-sovereign enclaves — finally collapsed with mass black revolt and took apartheid down with it, yet the Palestinian leadership now is not only walking right into that same trap but actually making a claim on it.

The reasons that the PA-Ramallah leadership and others want to walk into this trap are fuzzy. Maybe it could help the “peace talks” if they are redefined as negotiations between two states instead of preconditions for a state. Declaring statehood could redefine Israel’s occupation as invasion and legitimize resistance as well as trigger different and more effective United Nations intervention. Maybe it will give Palestinians greater political leverage on the world stage — or at least preserve the PA’s existence for another (miserable) year.

Why these fuzzy visions are not swiftly defeated by short attention to the South African Bantustan experience may stem partly from two key differences that confuse the comparison, for Israel has indeed sidestepped two infamous fatal errors that helped sink South Africa’s Homeland strategy. First, Israel did not make South Africa’s initial mistake of appointing “leaders” to run the Palestinian “interim self-governing” Homeland. In South Africa, this founding error made it too obvious that the Homelands were puppet regimes and exposed the illegitimacy of the black “national” territories themselves as contrived racial enclaves. Having watched the South Africans bungle this, and having learned from its own past failures with the Village Leagues and the like, Israel instead worked with the United States to design the Oslo process not only to restore the exiled leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its then Chairman Yasser Arafat to the territories but also to provide for “elections” (under occupation) to grant a thrilling gloss of legitimacy to the Palestinian “interim self-governing authority.” It’s one of the saddest tragedies of the present scenario that Israel so deftly turned Palestinians’ noble commitment to democracy against them in this way — granting them the illusion of genuinely democratic self-government in what everyone now realizes was always secretly intended to be a Homeland.

Palestinians have accepted 22% of their land but still do not have a state

Only now has Israel found a way to avoid South Africa’s second fatal error, which was to declare black Homelands to be “independent states” in non-sovereign territory. In South Africa, this ploy manifested to the world as transparently racist and was universally disparaged. It must be obvious that, if Israel had stood up in the international stage and said “as you are, you are now a state” that Palestinians and everyone else would have rejected the claim out of hand as a cruel farce. Yet getting the Palestinians to declare statehood themselves allows Israel precisely the outcome that eluded the apartheid South African regime: voluntary native acceptance of “independence” in a non-sovereign territory with no political capacity to alter its territorial boundaries or other essential terms of existence — the political death capsule that apartheid South Africa could not get the ANC to swallow.

Responses from Israel have been mixed. The government does seem jumpy and has broadcast its “alarm,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has threatened unilateral retaliation (unspecified) and government representatives have flown to various capitals securing international rejection. But Israeli protests could also be disingenuous. One tactic could be persuading worried Palestinian patriots that a unilateral declaration of statehood might not be in Israel’s interest in order to allay that very suspicion. Another is appeasing protest from that part of Likud’s purblind right-wing electorate that finds the term “Palestinian state” ideologically anathema. A more honest reaction could be the endorsement of Kadima party elder Shaul Mofaz, a hardliner who can’t remotely be imagined to value a stable and prosperous Palestinian future. Right-wing Israeli journalists are also pitching in with disparaging but also comforting essays arguing that unilateral statehood won’t matter because it won’t change anything (close to the truth). For example, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened unilaterally to annex the West Bank settlement blocs if the PA declares statehood, but Israel was going to do that anyway.

In the liberal-Zionist camp, Yossi Sarid has warmly endorsed the plan and Yossi Alpher has cautiously done so. Their writings suggest the same terminal frustration with the “peace process” but also recognition that this may be the only way to save the increasingly fragile dream that a nice liberal democratic Jewish state can survive as such. It also sounds like something that might please Palestinians — at least enough to finally get their guilt-infusing story of expulsion and statelessness off the liberal-Zionist conscience. Well-meaning white liberals in apartheid South Africa — yes, there were some of those, too — held the same earnest candle burning for the black Homelands system.

Some otherwise smart journalists are also pitching in to endorse unilateral statehood, raising odd ill-drawn comparisons — Georgia, Kosovo, Israel itself — as “evidence” that it’s a good idea. But Georgia, Kosovo and Israel had entirely different profiles in international politics and entirely different histories from Palestine and attempts to draw these comparisons are intellectually lazy. The obvious comparison is elsewhere and the lessons run in the opposite direction: for a politically weak and isolated people, who have never had a separate state and lack any powerful international ally, to declare or accept “independence” in non-contiguous and non-sovereign enclaves encircled and controlled by a hostile nuclear power can only seal their fate.

In fact, the briefest consideration should instantly reveal that a unilateral declaration of statehood will confirm the Palestinians’ presently impossible situation as permanent. As Mofaz predicted, a unilateral declaration will allow “final status” talks to continue. What he did not spell out is that those talks will become truly pointless because Palestinian leverage will be reduced to nothing. As Middle East historian Juan Cole recently pointed out, the last card the Palestinians can play — their real claim on the world’s conscience, the only real threat they can raise to Israel’s status quo of occupation and settlement — is their statelessness. The PA-Ramallah leadership has thrown away all the other cards. It has stifled popular dissent, suppressed armed resistance, handed over authority over vital matters like water to “joint committees” where Israel holds veto power, savagely attacked Hamas which insisted on threatening Israel’s prerogatives, and generally done everything it can to sweeten the occupier’s mood, preserve international patronage (money and protection), and solicit promised benefits (talks?) that never come. It’s increasingly obvious to everyone watching from outside this scenario — and many inside it — that this was always a farce. For one thing, the Western powers do not work like the Arab regimes: when you do everything the West requires of you, you will wait in vain for favors, for the Western power then loses any benefit from dealing more with you and simply walks away.

But more importantly, the South African comparison helps illuminate why the ambitious projects of pacification, “institution building” and economic development that the Ramallah PA and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have whole-heartedly embarked upon are not actually exercises in “state-building.” Rather, they emulate with frightening closeness and consistency South Africa’s policies and stages in building the Bantustan/Homelands. Indeed, Fayyad’s project to achieve political stability through economic development is the same process that was openly formalized in the South African Homeland policy under the slogan “separate development.” That under such vulnerable conditions no government can exercise real power and “separate development” must equate with permanent extreme dependency, vulnerability and dysfunctionality was the South African lesson that has, dangerously, not yet been learned in Palestine — although all the signals are there, as Fayyad himself has occasionally admitted in growing frustration. But declaring independence will not solve the problem of Palestinian weakness; it will only concretize it.

Still, when “separate development” flounders in the West Bank, as it must, Israel will face a Palestinian insurrection. So Israel needs to anchor one last linchpin to secure Jewish statehood before that happens: declare a Palestinian “state” and so reduce the “Palestinian problem” to a bickering border dispute between putative equals. In the back halls of the Knesset, Kadima political architects and Zionist liberals alike must now be waiting with bated breath, when they are not composing the stream of back-channel messages that is doubtless flowing to Ramallah encouraging this step and promising friendship, insider talks and vast benefits. For they all know what’s at stake, what every major media opinion page and academic blog has been saying lately: that the two-state solution is dead and Israel will imminently face an anti-apartheid struggle that will inevitably destroy Jewish statehood. So a unilateral declaration by the PA that creates a two-state solution despite its obvious Bantustan absurdities is now the only way to preserve Jewish statehood, because it’s the only way to derail the anti-apartheid movement that spells Israel’s doom.

This is why it is so dangerous that the South African Bantustan comparison has been neglected until now, treated as a side issue, even an exotic academic fascination, to those battling to relieve starvation in Gaza and soften the cruel system of walls and barricades to get medicine to the dying. The Ramallah PA’s suddenly serious initiative to declare an independent Palestinian state in non-sovereign territory must surely force fresh collective realization that this is a terribly pragmatic question. It’s time to bring closer attention to what “Bantustan” actually means. The Palestinian national movement can only hope someone in its ranks undertakes that project as seriously as Israel has undertaken it before it’s too late.

Virginia Tilley is a former professor of political science and international relations and since 2006 has served as Chief Research Specialist at the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. She is author of The One-State Solution (U of Michigan Press, 2005) and numerous articles and essays on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Based in Cape Town, she writes here in her personal capacity and can be reached at vtilley A T mweb D O T co D O T za.

Bantustans And The Unilateral Declaration Of Statehood By Virginia Tilley 20 November, 2009, The Electronic Intifada

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Bantustans and the unilateral declaration of statehood

Clinton admits to US support for Bin Laden & creation of Taliban

The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA….Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

It seemed like a great idea, back in the ’80s to– embolden– and train and equip– Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support– this group– including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Oct. 7th, 2009

During the House Committee on Foreign Affairs discussion recently. Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher named the Clinton administration, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for creating the Taliban.

“Let me repeat that: The Clinton administration, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, created the Taliban…” Rohrabacher

If this seems strange to you then look closely at the picture and you will see Congressman Rohrabacher on the right dressed in Taliban garb. Mr. Karzai’s elder brother was a Taliban and both used to live in Quetta Pakistan. Part of his family still lives there. Mr. Hamid Kiimself is a self-professed Taliban who was proposed as the UN Ambassador of the Taliban government. During this days as a Conoco representative Mr. Karzai reportedly received lots of money from Enron and Conocoto get the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline off the ground.

• RAW nest of Indian spies discovered in Kasur
• Pakistan demands greater role in Afghanistan
• More Proof of India’s involvement in terror against Pakistan
• We don’t really trust your country: Pakistanis to Hillary Clinton
• False ‘US claims on ephemeral Quetta Shura baseless’
• Why Clinton is not getting through’ to Pakistanis-bad US policies
• Truth from Pakistani people frustrates Clinton
• Crafty Clinton’s Clueless Charm schemes crash in Pakistan
• Pakistan demands greater role in Afghanistan
• More Proof of India’s involvement in terror against Pakistan
• Crafty Clinton’s Clueless Charm schemes crash in Pakistan

Dana Rohrabacher is Congressman for 46th congressional district. The 46th district includes the whole of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, andAvalon on the island of Catalina. Also included are parts of Long Beach, San Pedro, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster. Rohrabacher has accepted money from Jack Abramoff. He is pictured here with the Taliban.

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER| پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | November 30th, 2007 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

Here is Secretary os state Hillary Clinton admitting that Osama Bin Laden was trained and supported by the US.

Clinton: While at the same time realizing that there’s a lot of other moving parts to this. And the United States, to some extent, has to acknowledge, being among the creators of the problem we are now dealing with. It seemed like a great idea, back in the ’80s to– embolden– and train and equip– Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support– this group– including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union.Drove them out of Afghanistan, eventually. Saw the fall of the government that they had installed. And the rest we know. They eventually took over. But when we accomplished our primary mission of seeing the Soviet Union thrown out of Afghanistan, we withdrew. And we left the problems of a well-equipped, fundamentalist, ideological and religious group that had been battle hardened to the Afghans and the Pakistanis.

So, I think it’s understandable that people are saying, sort of, “Well, what’s your real commitment? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you understand the historical context and the regional geostrategic context?” So, I think it’s important to pose it as you do. Let’s look at it in the broader question. It’s not about do we put more troops in or not? Do we do this on economic development or not? You have to look at it in that broader context. WASHINGTON, Oct. Hillary Clinton Interview Full Transcript. Katie Couric Interviews Secretary of State Clinton about Afghanistan and the Road Ahead By Katie Couric

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/eveningnews/main5367884.shtml

The story of the CIA supporting the Taliban has been reportedly all over the press and is consecrated in many book. Sy Hersch as well as George Crieldiscussed the CIA connection at length The Talibaanwere a construct of the CIA! See Congressional records and visits to Texas ranches.

“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power.” Times of India, March 7, 2001

This picture shows the Afghans in the White House with President Reagan. Other Reagan-Afghan pictures used to be ubiqutous on the internet but have now vanished. The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA, ISI and the Saudis as a counter to a resurgent Russian-backed communist party andan antidote to the civil war in Afghanistan. Pakistan supported the Taliban in conjunction with the CIA who were arming it right up till 2000. The Taliban were visiting Governor Bush’s ranch in Texas.

CNN CROSSFIRE: Aired September 10, 2002 – 19:00 ET
Have U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan Been Successful if bin Laden is Alive?; Will Fingerprints Stop Terrorists From Entering the Country?

MCDERMOTT: It certainly is an improvement for the women of Afghanistan. But you’ve got to remember that of American policy, we put the Taliban there. We gave the money to the..

CARLSON: I beg your pardon?

MCDERMOTT: … Pakistanis.

CARLSON: You’re breaking news here, Congressman. I don’t think this has ever been reported before in the United States.

MCDERMOTT: Oh, yes, it has been. We funded the Taliban through the Pakistanis, and all that money — we could have cut off that money and stopped what was going on. We knew what was going on there.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/10/cf.00.html

I need to point out the fact that Pakistani pleas for sanity in Afghanistan were ignored in 2001. Those who want to understand the irked Pakistani must know that the in 2001 the US installed a non-Pashtun, anti-Pakistan government in Kabul. The must also know that NATO allows the puppet Karzai government to continue to bark at Pakistan.http://www.house.gov/international_relations/fc071200.pdf

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE–WASHINGTON : 68-482 CC 2000

GLOBAL TERRORISM: SOUTH ASIA-THE NEW LOCUS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: –HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION, JULY 12, 2000, Serial No. 106-173

“the United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along and still is”

The Pakistanis also know that despite being cold war allies for 50 years, Pakistan was threatened with annihilation in 2001. They also remember that $450 million paid for F-16s was never returned. Neither were the planes ever delivered. It is a matter of historical record that Pakistan never got the money back and did not get the planes either. The delivery of Soya beans does not make up for paid-for but undelivered F-16s. Pakistanis also remember that the world and Afghanistan abandoned 2 million refugees in Pakistan. The Pakistanis also note that the world does not support the liberation of Kashmir.

Afghanistan and US interests prior to 9-11
It has been widely broadcast that the U.S. helped arm and train Afghans and extremists to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It is ironic that these same people would turn their skills and arms against the United States. However, it is beyond deceptive to present this as our sole connection or interest in Afghanistan.

The Clinton administration had been working with the Taliban from 1994 forward. Why? Because some companies (particularly UNOCAL and Saudi owned Delta) wanted “to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan.” … “so that the vast untapped oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian and Caspian region could be transported to markets in South Asia, South-East Asia, Far East and the Pacific” 17. This is supported by Jon Flanders (2001, 18) article. While official relations were purportedly broken off in 1998, relations with the Taliban were maintained through the State Department (Ahmad) and through the Pakistan Military Intelligence ISI by the CIA. 19

According to Jon Flanders (2001), U.S. interest in the pipeline restarted in 2000, but was still not moving forward when Bush was elected. With Bush came Cheney (CEO of Halliburton) and Halliburton had investments in Turkmenistan for “integrated drilling services with an estimated value of $30 million for the total package.” 20

It should not be surprising given the oil interests of the President, his kin, and his appointees, that Bush placed Afghanistan on the top of his action list. In July 2001, Colin Powell gave the Taliban $43 million for “humanitarian aid” (Madsen, 2002, 21).

According to a BBC report by George Arney (9/18/01), the US was planning military action in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. “Naiz Naik, a former Pakistan Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action would go ahead by the middle of October.” 22 OpEd

informed people all over the world cannot fathom how the American administration can seriously claim to be pursuing “al Qaida-connected terrorists,” when they know that “al Qaida,” the terrorist organization never existed. Thanks to revelations by British MP Robin Cook in the Guardian, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html ), and French intelligence agent Pierre-Henry Bunel at the Wayne Madsen Report,(http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291)

people know that when the United States needed a new enemy, after the demise of the Soviet empire, they decided to call “the base” (an international computer data base in Saudi Arabia of Afghan fighters), designated as “al Qaida” [an email address], an international terrorist network.

“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited andtrained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” - Robin Cook

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informedintelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified internationalleadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.” – Pierre-Henry Bunel

“Elements associated with al Qaida” has become the new official catch-all phrase, used as often as possible, to incite terror among the American people and to justify new attacks by American forces and American-supported militia groups. We are going into Pakistan in force, to train new Pakistanis to fight other Pakistanis that we had trained too well in the past. How will we separate the “friendly” al Qaida from the unfriendly ones, when we bundle the whole bunch together under the rubric “al Qaida?”

Why are Islamists like Ayman al Zawahiri considered al Q., after they provided the US Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia, as well other Islamic recruits who served US interests in Chechnya? (http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=143)

The Islamic mercenaries were fighting for us when the embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, even after bin Laden and Zawahiriannounced the establishment of “The International Islamic Front for Holy War Against Jews andCrusaders,” (an umbrella organization linking Islamic extremists in scores of countries around the world, the bin Laden group that was renamed Al Qaida). The militant group, now called al Qaeda was the instant answer to the 9/11 attacks, even though it was never what it was alleged to be, the ultimate terrorist bogeyman. The conjunction of US and al Qaida interests all over the Muslim world should warn thinking individuals, whenever attacks happen to occur in just the places that the neoconwar planners would most like to invade.

It is more than reasonable to question where al Qaida ends and the secret world of their CIA trainers begins. Was it other trained al Qaida agents who pre-planted the demolitions that brought the towers down, obtained US security codes, timed the attacks into ongoing war games and stood down fighter cover, or was that part of the act of war the CIA’s domain? Questioning further along that line, was Pakistan’s ISI (secret service) still acting as the CIA’s surrogate, when ISIhead General Mahmud Ahmad allegedly had Sheik Omar wire Mohammed Atta $100,000? According to Chossudovsky:

“The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) andthe Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been “wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISIChief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad].” 10 According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

“The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.”http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20020620&articleId=371

The name “Sheikh Omar” should set off alarms to those who are paying attention. He was the one who Bhutto fingered on the David Frost interview on 2nd November 2007 (2:15),

“Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

Omar is mentioned in connection with a man that Bhutto feared might be involved in threats against her.

President Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire stated that the Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6 to go to the Balkans. Here is another shadowy figure linked to al Qaida, Western intelligence agencies andthe US program, organized by Bill Clinton, to bring radical Islamist Jihadis to the war in Yugoslavia. They fought on the US side, in a war prosecuted by the United States, as an Islamic paramilitary force. The Grassy knoll by peter Chamberlin

To put salt on open wounds, the US signed a Nuclear deal with arch-rival-India, not the major Non-NATO ally (Pakistan). Many Pakistanis wonder why $30 Billion were offered to Turkey to support war in Iraq, while Pakistan only received 1 billion to Pakistan for fighting Al-Qaeda and the Talibaan. You need to look at the situation with sanity and calm. Selective amnesia is the favorite tactic those who have an agenda. President Ayub Khan in 1966 said is best in his best selling book Pakistanis need “Friends no Masters”.

Inconveniently, invading Afghanistan was not ObL – at least not directly. First, regardless of the brutality of the Taleban inside Afghanistan, the U.S. wasfriendly with the Taleban. Through the Clinton administration, and into George W. Bush administration, the U.S. supported the Taleban government. In fact, Colin Powell gave the Taleban government $43 million in the summer of 2001 to facilitate progress on a pipeline through Afghanistan. That was the carrot. The stick was – do it or we will invade by October. Wow! Time lines from the Bush administration.

The short story is that Hamid Karzai, former UNOCAL advisor in Afghanistan, became the head of the new Afghan government. The pipeline project moved forward, and the Bush administration jumped off to the next big energy target for control – Iraq. But Afghanistan would not, and did not, go away. Now the people of Afghanistan want Karzai out for corruption and failure.OpEdNews October 24th, 2008

Pakistanis desire want and cherish American friendship however Pakistanis are not the “little brown brothers” who can do the bidding of anyone. Pakistan is a 150 million strong nuclear state anda crucial pivot on the war on terror. President Musharraf said it quite bluntly, “no one can do more” and the West will go down on their knees and fail if Pakistan without the help of the ISI andthe Pakistan army. Those who deal with Pakistan need to learn some manners and some appreciation of the sacrifice of 1000 Pakistani soldiers who died fighting the war on terror. Pakistanis are sick and tired of lectures on “do more”.

In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power,”

US AfPak policy review results mimic Chinese demads given to Hillary Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived. ~Abraham Lincoln In 1821 Solutions to “Obama’s Vietnam” Kabul: The Final Spring Offensive? End of NATO? Afghanistan: The writing is on the wall. Can Obama read it? UK Brig. Smith: “We’re not going to win this [Afghan] war”
Failure and Defeat in Afghanistan: Inevitable Frustration & misdirected Payback for ally Pakistan US Charge of the Light Brigade into Pakistan is a US failure and has to stop

Pakistan’s do more list for the USA Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan & Swat run by Taliban Huge Migraine for India

Facing the Khyber poltergeist & Ganges hobgoblin NATO war: UK 1880 defeats in Afghanistan
“Charge of the Light Brigade” in Afghanistan AGAIN: Unfortunately the lessons of the unmitigated disaster of “Auckland’s Folly”, (First Anglo-Afghan War 1838–42) have not been taught to the Oxbridge students.

Bin Laden used Reagan’s USSR strategy to Destroy US Capitalism? Cambodiazation of the Afghan war Rescueing the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan

Unite! Erase the Durand Line Solution: Fixing “AfPak” expedites the inevitable union between Pakistan & Afghanistan

• America has to rethink India policy
• US again offers peanuts in aid. Reject and negotiate up
• Hands off Pakistan is the slogan on the Pakistan news media
• Selective amnesia of Americans. Pakistan is the most mistreated friend of America. The post Benazir era must be different
• Pakistan-China-Russia:- An historic realignment
• Pakistan responds to Pentagon demands. Review Pakistan USA relationship
• Assault on Sovereignty. Pakistan says no to 11 new us demands
• Pakistani Cheese for Western whine
• Kissinger threatened Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
• Pakistan first: The devastating affects of appeasing India and kowtowing to the USA
• Perhaps Mr. Kissinger living in the 70s should face the new realities. Waving goodbye to American Hegemony.
• Trilaterals triangulating in Pakistan
• Putting blame on Pakistan wont’ help the war on terror.
• Joe Biden wants to triple the aid to Pakistan but it may be too little too late.
• Hands off Pakistan is the slogan on the Pakistan news media
• Brookings finally realizes that Pakistan is not being taken over by the extremists

Pakistanis cannot do more. If anyone can find others who can do more, please use them!
Every time something bad happens, anti-Pakistan elements come out of the woodwork. Here is a response to the talking heads.” The Murdocized news media jumps on any small happening in Pakistan blows it all out of proportion. For example, there were 400 terrorist attacks in India, and were either not reported at all, or reported on page 38. To win the war on terror. America needs to make a U Turn in our thinking deconsructing the wrong paradigm. The American State Department should learn some manners. Posting General Hood in Islamabad was a horirble mistake. Pushing Pakistan’s wrong buttons. To eliminate the terror, a massive Marshall program needs to be instituted for Pakistan. The pennies given right now, about $650 million for the next five years–and half of it stays in the USA. Pakistani infrastructure needs: Build Pakistan up as a bulwark against American enemies”. The discussion of Pakistan Nukes withotu discusisng Indian or Israeli weapons, fuels Anti-Americanism. About the inane discussion of taking out Pakistan’s Nuclear weapons.”. The discussion ofTaking out Pakistani Nuclear weapons.” should be put in the round file. The Democrats don’t get it

• Discussion of taking out Pakistani nukes: The White House should immediately repudiate this aggression and arrest Anti-Americansim”
• A propoer aid program for Pakistan, along with an FTA and access to European markets will reduce the poverty and reduce the issues. Wish List from Pakistan to Santa America”
• Perpetual Mimetic warfare cannot solve the issues.
• The Worst Islamphobes. in the world have blood on their hands. They create terror. Rebutting Cohen. He is an Indian agent!
• Where are the Pakistani nukes? They are hidden. The US Think Tank industry is very biased. On deconstructing the wrong paradigm. Why the US Think Tank industry is wrong!
• Another prophecy of doom for Pakistan. Blah Blah Blah!
• Pakistanis want to hear “Thank You” for the US
• Pakistanis to USA: We want “Friends Not Masters”
• America: Say Thank You”
• Pakistan US Relations should be normal not transactional”
• Response to Congressman Hoyer on Pakistan”
  On inadequate US Aid to Pakistan”
• ….Pakistanis are not stupid and have their nukes hidden”
• Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden
• The CIA Connection…….The Benzair Bhutto Assassination was preplanned, the Zia model with a twist. The continued CIA involvement in Pakistan. The Great Game continues. When the Elephants dance the grass gets stamped upon…Pakistanis suffer. The purpose of this assignation is to destabilize Pakistan and find a reason to secure the Nukes

APPENDIX A

March 4, 2002

The Enron Corporation gave the Taliban millions of dollars in a no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan — wile the Taliban were already sheltering terror kingpin Osama Bin Laden!

Enron executives even met with Taliban officials in Texas, where they were given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal went through.

That’s the bombshell finding of an exclusive ENQUIRER investigation into the collapse of the company that ripped off Americans for millions of dollars. The ENQUIRER has also uncovered that some of the Enron money wound up supporting Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network!

“Enron would do business with the devil if it would make the company money!” said a member of a Congressional committee investigating the company’s collapse.

And Atul Davda, who worked as a senior director for Enron’s InternationalDivision until the company’s collapse, confirmed to The ENQUIRER: “Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials. Building the pipeline was one of the corporation’s prime objectives.”

As The ENQUIRER revealed two weeks ago, Enron secretly employed CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. And a CIA insider disclosed : “Enron was wooing the Taliban and was willing to make the Taliban a partner in the operation of a pipeline through Afghanistan.

“Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a ‘tax’ on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through the pipeline.”

Enron shelled out more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and “a large portion of that cost was payoffs to the Taliban,” said the CIA source.

Shockingly, Enron’s wooing of the Taliban continued even after Al Qaeda agents bombed two American embassies in Africa in 1998, andthe U.S. retaliated with missile attacks on suspected Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Sudan.

“The U.S. was shooting missiles into Afghanistan, and it was clear that the Taliban were enabling Bin Laden and Al Qaeda,” terrorist expert Jeffrey Steinberg, editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, told The ENQUIRER.

“Nonetheless the oil companies continued to work behind the scenes to complete the pipeline deal.”

The pipeline project was originally proposed by Unocal Corporation.

And an FBI source told The ENQUIRER : “Enron and Unocal dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan and the Taliban. The pipeline would relieve our dependence on Saudi Arabia — and Enron would make billions.

“When Clinton was bombing Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan in 1998, Enron was making payoffs to Taliban and Bin Laden operatives to keep the pipeline project alive. And there’s no way that anyone could NOT have known of the Taliban and Bin Laden connection at that time, especially Enron who had CIA agents on its payroll!”

Said an Enron company source, “After the Taliban came to power in 1996, Tliban leaders were invited to Sugar Land, Texas, by Unocal and Enron executives.

“The Taliban’s mullahs were given the royal treatment for four days in 1997!”

The visit was aimed at getting Taliban cooperation to build the pipeline, which would carry vast gas and oil deposits from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Enron had exclusive contracts with the former Russian republics, according to another former Enron employee.

The pipeline was to travel through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean.

When contacted by The ENQUIRER, U.S. State Department’s press officer for South Asian Affairs, Len Scensny, confirmed that a Taliban delegation visited Sugar Land, Teas, in 1997 to discuss business with oil companies.

Three days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Unocal announced it had withdrawn from the Afghanistan pipeline project.

But the CIA insider said Enron and its CEO Kenneth Lay held on, waiting for the Taliban to give up Bin Laden as the Bush administration was demanding.

“Enron figured the Taliban wanted to stick to their deal, that they wanted riches the same way Enron did.

“What Enron and Ken Lay didn’t understand is that it was Bin Laden who was calling the shots, not Enron’s Taliban friends.

“Now Enron and the Taliban are both goners!”

APPENDIX B

http://jbonline.terra.com.br/editorias/pais/papel/2008/06/28/pais20080628021.html

I will only translate short excerpts from Alfredo Ruy Barbosa’s text:The now famous Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, his group was named “warriors of freedom”, because it was helping America in the war against the communist government of Afghanistan. During that period, Ronald Reagan was the president and Bush Sr. was the vice-president. Once, Reagan called those fighters (Bin Laden’s) the “warriors of freedom” and that they were the “moral equivalent of the founding fathers of America” (sic.) As improbable as it may seem, in an old film (Rambo 3), the Afghan muslims were called the “good guys”.

At the beginning of the Afghan war Hamid Kazai was the director of UNOCOL, later he was “elected” president of the country. Zalmay Khalilzad also worked for UNOCOL and he was appointed as ambassador of that country.

Before 9/11, Saddam was considered a “friend” and “ally” of America; the United States backed the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against the Iranians and Curds.

Dick Chenney was CEO of Halliburton and Condolezza Rice was the director of CHEVRON between 1991 and 2001. Be careful, “Lula”.

A few hours ago (July 05) I witnessed the live interview of Ms. Rice, it was shown at BLOOMBERG NEWS, in Judy Woodruff’s programme.

I’ll quote merely three words which were uttered by Ms. Rice:

“……WOMANS in politics…..” (sic.)

APPENDIX C

Not so very long ago Mr. Bush mentioned something about the American CHILDRENS! (sic.)

Was Ms. Rice George’s private English tutor?!

Armando Rozário – Cabo Frio – BRAZIL – July 05, 2008

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 23 January 2002

---

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency’s interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

The “war on terrorism,” focused primarily on a fictional global insurgency named “al Qaida,” that, in fact, fought for American interests in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia and Chechnya is an exercise in hypocrisy. The more “evidence” that is provided to us, to prove the al Qaida connection to every act of terrorism, the more evident it becomes that the war is a fraud, based on a cover-up of a treasonous attack, intended to whitewash history and to paint America as a heroic nation, dedicated to bringing freedom and democracy to all people. The United States’ claim to be promoting democracy, while it exports state terrorism, has demolished the hopes of all those who still believe in American “good will,” all over the world.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• The Only Solution to the Afghanistan Problem
• Cross-Cultural Understanding for Peace: So why does HTS go to Afghanistan?
• The morning after…

A new dawn for Malaysian Barisan National and the art of dying alive Praba Ganesan is a Hulu Langat boy with a penchant for durians and debate.

Despite the deep political divides in the country being perfect for Machiavellian rule (Don’t you wish you could make a comeback Dr M?), not many will bet on the strength of the Najib administration or its longevity. He remains largely vulnerable.

It is difficult to pinpoint Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s Achilles Heel, and in the blizzard of negatives directed at him one is more than likely to be distracted in the analysis.

I struggle aplenty in putting it in cogent thought but my uncouth summary would be he is not his own man.

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) not only advanced its democratic reform agenda today but also raised the bar for other political parties in Malaysia by introducing term limits for the president, as well as making the party’s highest post one that is directly elected by ordinary members and not just delegates.The moves, which required a constitutional amendment, was approved by nearly 90 per cent of the approximately one thousand delegates at a special congress today, easily surpassing the two thirds majority required for any amendment.Monash University Malaysia political scientist James Chin says that by democratising the party, PKR has set an example for other parties to follow and will strengthen it ahead of the next general elections.“This amendment will mean that PKR is now the most democratic party in Malaysia today,” said Monash University Malaysia political scientist James Chin. “No Barisan Nasional (BN) party has direct elections for president. The move will make PKR more appealing”.Other leaders at the central and divisional level would also be directly elected.Among other significant amendments to the party constitution was the stipulation that at least thirty per cent of decision making committees at all levels must comprise women.The qualifying age of the Youth wing was also lowered from 40 to 35 in order to encourage the youth members to enter mainstream politics.“This move is an obvious and positive one as other youth wings have an age ceiling of 45, which is crazy,” says Chin.In an effort to brand itself as “progressive” and “egalitarian”, and move away from feudalistic connotations, the party has introduced new descriptions for its organisational structure. The supreme council (majlis pimpinan tertinggi) is now replaced with central leadership committee (majlis pimpinan pusat) while “bahagian” or division has been superseded by “cabang”, and “cawangan” or branch will be referred to as “ranting”.Nine hundred and forty one delegates voted to approve the amendments, while 103 voted against and nine abstained.According to PKR information chief Latheefa Koya, the one-tenth of delegates who resisted the amendments were primarily Youth wing members who thought they would lose their positions under the lower age ceiling.She said that they may have misunderstood the implications, as there would be a transition phase and elected youth leaders can keep their current positions till 2013.The new age requirement would, however, be effective immediately for appointed positions.

RELATED ARTICLE

READMORE

A new dawn for Malaysian politics UMNO plagiarizinMonash University Malaysia political scientist James Chin says that by democratising the partyg PKR?

He keeps chasing shadows — his father’s and Mahathir Mohamad’s — and therefore he will always be second-guessing himself. He is too scared to be wrong, therefore forfeiting himself from being right more often.

The alarming results from Election 2008, Tun Abdullah’s meekness and the rising knee-jerk rebellion in the party would have won him the presidency — by extension become the head of the Malaysian government — quite quickly last year if Najib chose to force the issue, but he did not. He waited out almost a year to replace Pak Lah.

He let the collective force of change in the party move him into the hot seat, with his biggest challenge being to dissuade Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin from dreaming higher. He relied on the party’s limitation in great distress — it purchases only change it can afford (one change at a time) — to elevate himself.

The Pekan MP has to establish to the party faithful that the play is dictated by him, and in the Bagan Pinang by-election he abdicated that opportunity. It seemed inevitable that Tan Sri Isa Samad would be the candidate, despite his own disciplinary record in the party. All Najib got to do was spin on how much soul-searching he went through to pick “his man.”

It spelt out that Najib toes the prevailing undercurrents in the party, and not shape the party to his aspirations.

The only person in his Cabinet who has been decisive — right or wrong — has been Muhyiddin in calling off the “English experiment” in schools with immediate effect start of the new school term. It was not a compromise decision, just a decision — upsetting many, but cheered on by many as well.

Giving further reason for Najib to look over his shoulder uncomfortably.

In the Mahathir years, the component parties in Barisan Nasional had morphed into subsidiaries of Umno. In part to the Kubang Pasu maverick, and in part to the rapid Umno-fication of the economy and the civil service.

These parties have gone headless long enough, and now hold on the coattails of Umno. Even at the nadir, Najib has not been able to impose his will.

MCA — the saying my enemy’s enemy is my friend has been taken to its incredulous conclusion with many permutations thrown in daily, that no one knows who will be whose friend next week. And this after the prime minister apparently masterminding a compromise solution.

MIC — is like a permanent Custer’s last stand, with a band of Samy Vellu’s men denying any reality without their grand boss. It is an open secret that Najib would jump enthusiastically if the former Sungai Siput MP fades away.

Instead of confronting Samy, Najib passes on pseudo-support for the “official” Hindraf party which has shown greater BN affinities.

It is a dangerous game. The splitting of Sabah parties to break up Parti Bersatu Sabah’s (PBS) grip was done with Umno being a competitor for indigenous votes. Umno is not competing for Indian votes, it is harbouring them through its Indian parties.

I don’t agree with that think, but that is the formula BN builds itself upon.

Increasing the Indian conduits is a tricky strategy, as there is already People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and Indian Progressive Front (IPF).

Talking about the PPP, the prime minister has one deputy minister in his department and another leader in his BN supreme council from the party — both claiming control of PPP. Surely that can’t go on.

It is almost like Najib is willing to dance with more partners as long as he does not offend any of them.

Tun Razak Hussein may have cobbled together the BN in a time of great uncertainty, but that does not mean the son has a birthright to controlling it — as the developments show the fallaciousness of hereditary entitlement.

The third test is about capturing the public’s imagination.

Whilst being a smaller nation inside the Asean, Malaysia has always has bolstered its own sense of worth through chest-thumping. The prime minister usually provides the material to initiate the thumping, and a grateful nation sighs in relief.

Mahathir’s Proton, Dayabumi, Twin Towers and litany of “look at us, look at us” projects has nursed to the present a generation of sycophants.

It dilutes any sense of emptiness the nation feels. Indeed in a connected world, a false sense of reality may be harder to sell but you will be surprised how handily Malaysians programmed to receive will submit to a “dream.”

These are the Malaysians who kept shouting Wawasan 2020 for a good decade or so under a Mahathir government writing cheques you can’t cash.

Najib’s fairly unimaginative, but you can’t compare him with the verbose Mahathir. The 1 Malaysia campaign is still blowing hot and cold, especially when the bulwark of it includes setting up one mixed hostel in the city.

The F1 entry may be his undoing in terms of the inappropriateness of starting an expensive endeavour in a rich-world of motor-racing, the same year you ask your fellow Malaysians to tighten their belts and show prudence in their spending.

The public will grow weary if the track results are poor and the economy keeps being depressed in the way it distributes to poorer Malaysians.

So you see they come in order: keeping Umno in check, holding down the component parties and feeding the public PR they can swallow.

Of course he can chuck it all out, and not be the type of leader we have had for close to 30 years.

And become his own man. The man before him failed to do that, and there is absolutely no evidence Najib will break free from the formulaic think he has been indoctrinated with after 33 years in public service.

Najib has to understand leadership is confidence, and the confidence must come from him and not from following a hackneyed formula. So far he has been akin to a schoolboy copying from a school senior, and that won’t do.

He has to write his own manual. That is always a bridge too far for the Nottingham University graduate.

Barisan National and the art of dying alive

It is easy to exaggerate the crisis in the B.N It would be wise, however, not to confuse the convulsions at the level of the leadership, impressively violent as they are, with the party’s death throes. The party is alive and kicking — and chopping and twirling and performing the rest of the prescribed morning drill with staff and khaki shorts.

There is only one strong inference that can be drawn from the ongoing turbulence in the B.N: the wild hope of some that the B.N would emerge as a stableThe B.N will remain in the thrall of the RACIALIST the mother organisation of the MAHATIRISM, for the foreseeable future.

Political parties in B.N are curious institutions. Many people see them purely as alternative platforms of patronage, their moral equivalence altered only by their degree of proximity to power. “He couldn’t get the ticket from party X, so he approached party Y” is an oft-heard refrain. That belonging to a party means allegiance to a particular leader is something people appreciate; that it entails allegiance to certain values, modes of functioning and policy choices unique to that party is not part of the conventional wisdom.

.Given such amorphous conceptualisation of a political party in the popular mind, it is not surprising that people make the common mistake of seeing the B.N also as yet another political party.

The B.Nclaims to be the party with a difference. That is no spurious claim. It is different in the sense that it is not just another platform in pursuit of power, pelf and patronage. The essence of its difference, the secret ingredient of this particular Maggi sauce, is its membership of MONGOLIA

What does it mean to be part of the MONGOLIA The primary implication is that you subscribe to and follow the ideology of the MAHATIRISM. The secondary implication is that you implicitly, if not explicitly, cede overriding powers of decision-making to the MCC in organisational, ideological and tactical matters. The MCC might choose not to play an active role in the decision-making process of aMONGOLIA outfit, but it can always assert its authority if it wants to.

This philosophy, quite obviously, is fascist in nature and anti-thetical to democracy. This, of course, makes the B.N, a party with a difference, as compared to most other parties that function within the limits of MALAYSIANS liberal democratic Constitution. This structure also gives the B.N its real strength and a steady stream of workers and supporters, regardless of the party’s bungling leadership.

Other political parties would make a big mistake if they focus exclusively on the squabbles among the leaders and ignore this network of feeder organisations for the B.N and the strength the party derives from their interlocking presence.

The tussle over leadership is also grossly overblown. Chua is their clear choice, despite the sobering electoral performance he managed to come up with. It is claimed that the UMNO doesn’t get along with CHUA and that would come in the way of his elevation to the leadership of the MCA. CHUA is too smart a politician to not build bridges with the UMNO, if that is what it takes to clear his path to the topEveryone is alive till he or she dies. So dying alive is the only way to die, you can’t die when already dead. Dying alive sounds interesting, but is little more than much ado about nothing. That is what the current squabble in the B.N amounts to as well.READMORE CLICK BELOW

Barisan National and the art of dying alive

Leave a Comment

Today Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang belasah be red faces when the Speaker of the House of Commons that Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Hj Mulia. Lim Kit Siang (LKS) motion because he objects to wake up under Article 18 (1) rejected by the speaker in the room. Decline in the room means that there is no opportunity to be discussed or referred to in the hall. But they can find publicity opportunities. Lost opportunity to continue to hit the government. Opposition always bring motions under rule 18 (1). Although they know that the motion may be rejected because of trivial beer, but if they rejected the hall instead of in the room is better.

Decline in the hall means that motion can be read in the hall. Therefore it is in the parliamentary Hansard. It is so material can be found in the documentation library. It will be printed and disseminated to the public either via the internet, blog, facebook and letters. But they will be seen as a hero because the issue raised. That's their strategy. In their motion even though it can not be discussed and need not be answered by the ministers, but that their purpose when it can be read in the hall.

Motion 18 (1) must meet three important criteria. First it is related to certain issues. Second it is related to public interest. And the third issue is urgent. But most of the motion brought by the opposition rejected as not urgent.

That is why Lim Kit Siang angry when he denied the motion. Let alone in the room denied. He was supported by Anwar. Anwar argued, if so does not need to parliament., If issues such as corruption issues can not be discussed in parliament with the motion. Even with Lim Kit Siang gauche states that the speaker actually follow government index. Motion because all the things they carried through 18 (1) declined.

But when the speaker explains the various arguments in accordance with regulations, including proof of evidence. Both opposition leaders are embarrassed and speechless. Speaker explains the lie they rejected all motions thus produce some examples, such as opposition to the motion brought by the H1N1 outbreak Gopeng, motion carried by a landslide Gombak, motion carried by a Palestinian in Kubang Kerian, motion carried by the rice also Kubang Kerian, all accepted and allowed by speakerr for debate.

They grow when shame speakers including the date proves that once a motion has been brought to their bahaskan during the debate at the policy committee and repeatedly even several times since the last two or three terms. So what's the need for motion is carried? Increased shame, when the speaker satirize both figures that rotate Believe it, he knew the purpose, the motion was submitted. Which is only looking for publicity and playing politics.

Nevertheless, “The Taking of Selangor 123”, to borrow a phrase from the box office’s recent offering, starring John Travolta and Denzel Washington, should be neither like a celluloid hostage drama nor anything as chaotic as the unfolding of the Perak constitutional crisis.In effect, any of the hypothetical situations I outlined above would be sufficient reason to NOT rock the boat of business-as-usual and wish for regime change – unless, of course, it’s the gradual variety and takes another couple of generations to materialize (which, I suppose, is more than enough time for some folks to grab everything they can and skedaddle out of here).

Having given the matter a fair amount of thought, I’ve concluded that those who support the Status Quo must somehow have learnt to filter out “inconvenient truths” that might cause them to feel some unease about propping up a cruel and criminal administration.

The first “inconvenient truth” that comes to mind about the Umno/BN regime is its insistence on heavy-handed policing of political dissent via a plethora of archaic and repressive laws – the most medievally grotesque being, of course, the Internal Security Act.

It would appear that those who continue to endorse the ISA do so out of fear – mainly, fear of losing access to ill-gotten gains which translates as “special privileges” and “racial supremacy.”

Such a stance is absolutely unjustifiable and reveals abysmal upbringing and hooliganistic attitudes. It canno

datuk nazim razak, the younger brother of najib.said rosmah was very happy with me for retracting

datuk nazim razak, the younger brother of najib.said rosmah was very happy with me for retracting

Edit

By fawas Leave a Comment

Categories: Uncategorized

He was Datuk Nazim Razak, the younger brother of Najib. He was there informed me that Rosmah was very happy with me for retracting my O.k ,ith his pregnant wife.

He let me get this straight, Bala is a PI he has worked for the special branch. We can therefore assume that Bala is experienced in surveillance and recording techniques. Yet Mr Bala, as far as I am aware to date has not provided a single tapped phone call from Dipshit, sorry Deepak and has not provided any video recording of any of his meetings, especially with the VIP.

Big Fat Mama (BFM): Master Guruji, please help us. . ., this RPK and Bala is making our lives miserable. Help us, please!

Q 75. Did you realise that this meeting had been secretly videoed?

A. I did not realise I was being filmed. I was however subsequently informed that a recording had been made and this video is safekeeping. I understand this was done to protect me in the event something untoward happened to me again.

How did you manage to survive financially all the time you were away?

A. Deepak arranged intermittent payments to be made to me. Some payments were made to my wife directly into her account with the EON Bank in KL.

Other payments were made to ASP Suresh who then arranged payment to me directly or through a friend of mine in Malaysia.

I have copies of some of the cheques issued by Deepak Jaikishan and from his company Carpet Raya Sdn Bhd.

I also have copies of my wife’s bank statements showing the deposits which were made.

I also have copies of my HSBC account in Chennai.

Q 77. How much money did you receive from Deepak from the time you left Malaysia in July 2008 till now?

A. All together approximately RM750,000.00.

Q 78. Do you have any money left?

A. Yes, I have invested approximately RM250,000.00 for my future as I am not sure what will happen to me.

I also spent some money on renovations to my house in Rawang as my wife and youngest child were there. These renovations were in respect of the security of my home only.

The rest of the money was spent on renting accommodation in Chennai, paying for my children’s schooling and for daily expenses.

Q 79. Didn’t Deepak promise you RM5 million?

A. The negotiations were all conducted by ASP Suresh at the Bak Kut Teh stall in Rawang on the night of the 3rd July 2008. I was not involved in these negotiations as I was not concerned about money but the safety of my family.

I have subsequently come to realise that ASP Suresh had a vested interest in all this as I know he has received about the same amount of money from Deepak as I have. His job was to keep me under control. This is why he is annoyed with me for not following his instructions because his income from Deepak would be affected.

Don’t you find this strange that a man who has made a career out of following people, recording what they do etc has not been able to do any recording or arrange for it to be recorded at any stage during this entire episode??? I know we all love Pete, he’s a brave and just man, but there are people out there who tell him lies too and we need to question there story. The reason the international media has not touched this story is that there is no evidence, none at all. Anyone can produce a photocopy cheque, I can write one right now to Mr Razak for a RM10million and post it on MT making all sorts of claims, but this means nothing. I hope MT readers will start using their brains to question this story more it does not fit with normal human behaviour, nor is there any real evidence.1st statutory declaration and wanted to have breakfast with me.

He was Datuk Nazim Razak, the younger brother of Najib. He was there with his pregnant wife.
He informed me that Rosmah was very happy with me for retracting my O.k , let me get this straight, Bala is a PI he has worked for the special branch. We can therefore assume that Bala is experienced in surveillance and recording techniques. Yet Mr Bala, as far as I am aware to date has not provided a single tapped phone call from Dipshit, sorry Deepak and has not provided any video recording of any of his meetings, especially with the VIP.
How did you manage to survive financially all the time you were away?
A. Deepak arranged intermittent payments to be made to me. Some payments were made to my wife directly into her account with the EON Bank in KL.
Other payments were made to ASP Suresh who then arranged payment to me directly or through a friend of mine in Malaysia.
I have copies of some of the cheques issued by Deepak Jaikishan and from his company Carpet Raya Sdn Bhd. I also have copies of my wife’s bank statements showing the deposits which were made.
I also have copies of my HSBC account in Chennai.
Q 77. How much money did you receive from Deepak from the time you left Malaysia in July 2008 till now? A. All together approximately RM750,000.00. Q 78. Do you have any money left? A. Yes, I have invested approximately RM250,000.00 for my future as I am not sure what will happen to me. I also spent some money on renovations to my house in Rawang as my wife and youngest child were there. These renovations were in respect of the security of my home only. The rest of the money was spent on renting accommodation in Chennai, paying for my children’s schooling and for daily expenses.
Q 79. Didn’t Deepak promise you RM5 million?
A. The negotiations were all conducted by ASP Suresh at the Bak Kut Teh stall in Rawang on the night of the 3rd July 2008. I was not involved in these negotiations as I was not concerned about money but the safety of my family. I have subsequently come to realise that ASP Suresh had a vested interest in all this as I know he has received about the same amount of money from Deepak as I have. His job was to keep me under control. This is why he is annoyed with me for not following his instructions because his income from Deepak would be affected.

Don’t you find this strange that a man who has made a career out of following people, recording what they do etc has not been able to do any recording or arrange for it to be recorded at any stage during this entire episode??? I know we all love Pete, he’s a brave and just man, but there are people out there who tell him lies too and we need to question there story. The reason the international media has not touched this story is that there is no evidence, none at all. Anyone can produce a photocopy cheque, I can write one right now to Mr Razak for a RM10million and post it on MT making all sorts of claims, but this means nothing. I hope MT readers will start using their brains to question this story more it does not fit with normal human behaviour, nor is there any real evidence.1st statutory declaration and wanted to have breakfast with me.

Let’s look at the recent revelation by Bala and accept as it is on the surface as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Let’s not dispute its authenticity for the moment.The next million dollar question will be what will be the next course of action for Rosnah and Najib to strategize? Will Najib/Rosnah continue to deny their knowledge of Altantuya and her subsequent murder and Rosnah’s connection with Deepak?How will this impinge on the rest of UMNO partners’s perception on Najib?is there a possibility that Najib’s tenure of office will witness an unprecedented tussle for power ?What will happen to Bala, to Deepak, to ASP Suresh. Will Rosnah take this recent revelation in her stride and execute another covert masterplan to stifle this damning piece of incriminating information on her involvement?

This is going to be another ‘Grisham’ series of thriller of plot and counter plot.

We await for RPK’s next episode, and only RPK can keep us in utter suspense!

ON VICTORY, CONSENSUAL LEADERSHIP AND REVERSION TO FORM
WRITTEN BY RAZALEIGHHAMZAH FEBRUARY 23, 2009 AT 6:10 PM

I WAS RECENTLY ASKED TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS FOR AN AUSTRALIAN NEWS
PROGRAMME:REJECT MR. NAJIB,THE MOST HIGH-PROFILE SCANDAL TO TARNISH MR. NAJIB’S REPUTATION IS THE MURDER OF THE MONGOLIAN WOMAN, ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU, THE MISTRESS OF MR. NAJIB’S FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER. HER LIFE AND DEATH, A MIX OF SOAP OPERA AND HORROR MOVIE, HAVE CAPTIVATED AND SHOCKED THE PUBLIC.

PROSECUTORS SAY MS. SHAARIIBUU WAS KILLED IN OCTOBER 2006 BY GOVERNMENT COMMANDOS WHO ALSO SERVE AS BODYGUARDS TO THE COUNTRY’S TOP LEADERS.

MR. NAJIB HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME, BUT LAWYERS SAY THE HANDLING OF THE CASE HAS BEEN IRREGULAR AND CRITICIZE THE PROSECUTION FOR FAILING TO CALL MR. NAJIB TO TESTIFY.

WHEN SHE WAS MURDERED, MS. SHAARIIBUU WAS REPORTEDLY SEEKING HER SHARE OF A COMMISSION — THE OPPOSITION CALLS IT A BRIBE — WORTH €115 MILLION, OR $155 MILLION, PAID BY A FRENCH COMPANY AS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT’S DEAL TO BUY SUBMARINES. MR. NAJIB, WHO IS DEFENSE MINISTER AS WELL AS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, HANDLED THE SUBMARINE PURCHASE.

THE HUGE SIZE OF THE COMMISSION — ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE SUBMARINES — IS NOT BEING INVESTIGATED DESPITE AN OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT THAT IT WAS MADE TO A COMPANY LINKED TO MR. NAJIB’S AIDE, WHO WAS ACQUITTED IN CONNECTION WITH MS. SHAARIIBUU’S MURDER.

PERHAPS MORE WORRYING FOR THE COUNTRY IS THE STANDOFF IN PERAK, A STATE WHERE SINCE EARLY FEBRUARY THE POLICE HAVE BARRED LAWMAKERS WHO OPPOSE THE GOVERNING PARTY FROM ENTERING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

we have a name linked to he who’s destined to rule-his younger brother,

But this series of revelations will go the way of all the circumstantial evidence linking najis with altantuya.

• Her last journey starts at night when she gives a slip to bala’s men watching her movements, she took her last taxi ride from hotel Malaya to bagindas house. What could have been the topic of her discussion with the taxi driver? Was he the one who took down the car registration no, which was used in a grab at bagindas house?.
  What she told about own P.I WHO abandon her at the last moment, she was helpless? As the taxi
  stop she was grabbed and bundled into that car and driven off. If only they had waited, for the taxi go then they had grabbed her, they could have pull off the perfect encounter.
  With her name erased from the immigration entries, she will be in the missing persons list. But god was on her side that day, because she had to be scarified, in order to bring to open the evil forces that are planning to rule this country. But to PAS PRESIDENT it just a murder why we have to make it an issue out of it?The taxi driver went back to the stand at hotel Malaya to be confronted by the victim’s cousin sister to whom he gave the vital informations. The Rest is history…………………………

The authorities here will not investigate their boss , that musang chap even openly lied he has no knowledge bala has been back in the country.
I am no lawyer but the way i see the new information is that there will still be no new developments for altantuya and her family to get justice until new solid concrete evidence comes up!

into that car and driven off. If only they had waited, for the taxi go then they had grabbed her, they could have pull off the perfect encounter.

With her name erased from the immigration entries, she will be in the missing persons list. But god was on her side that day, because she had to be scarified, in order to bring to open the evil forces that are planning to rule this country. But to PAS PRESIDENT it just a murder why we have to make it an issue out of it?The taxi driver went back to the stand at hotel Malaya to bMalaysia Today carried a post entitled ‘Abuse of power by the Deputy Prime Minister’ that laid out a series of sms’es alleged to have passed between Najib and senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah in relation to Razak Baginda’s arrest and remand in the days before Baginda was charged.

Najib was publicly asked to comment about these sms’es and he never denied the authenticity of the same.

Now, there’s one other exchange of sms’es, this time allegedly between Razak Baginda and Najib. I do not recall Najib himself having ever addressed or denied or admitted the correctness or otherwise of these sms’es directly, as he did with the series of sms’es referred to in the MT posting.

I am referring to the 2 sms’es mentioned at paragraphs 51 and 52 of the first statutory declaration of private investigator Balasubramaniam. Let me reproduce below both paragraphs 51 and 52 of that first statutory declaration.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Najib Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool”.

Like all of you, I am aware of Bala’s second statutory declaration contradicting the first, but we also have to acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding the making and public announcement of the second statutory declaration, and the subsequent disappearance of the maker of both, might make it prudent for us to defer adjudging which of the two statutory declarations narrates the truth until such time that Bala is available to fully disclose andexplain the circumstances surrounding the making of both statutory delcarations.AS THE TAXI DRIVER SAW…ALTANTUYA’S LAST HOURS.

The Return Of The Mongolian Lady – Part IVBig Fat Mama (BFM): Master Guruji, please help us. . ., this RPK and Bala is making our lives miserable. Help us, please!Guruji: Wokay, wokay. . ., no popadum!BFM: What?Guruji: No problem, no problem! But first, you and Pa-tee must wear these sandals and beaded garlands. Than together we must chant some mantra until morning.

Jibby: What mantra?

Guruji: Ayo, yo. . .mantra to rid your problem, aneh!

BFM: Will you be quite and follow Master Guruji’s advice,. . .now wear this sandal and beaded garland like he told you so!

Master Guruji than lead the chanting of Lord Naryan’s mantra,. . . “Om Sharangat Dinart Paritran Parayane, Sarvasyarti Hare Devi Narayani Namostute”!

Meanwhile, somewhere in Sungai Besi

Suresh: This Bala is giving us problem again.

DeFcuk: Ya lah! What should we do about him? We already gave him RM750,000, he still want some more!

Suresh: Sheesh. . .!, you are the one who promised him RM5 million and you also promised him he could return to KL when Jibby had been installed as the PeeM!

DeFcuk: Ahh. . ., don’t worry lah thamby. That mattress carrier and his deputy sure do nothing. Don’t worry. . ., people will forget.

Suresh: That’s what we hope. . ., but than this RPK is turning our lives upside down now. He has been publishing many things damaging. . ., now cannot hide anymore! PeeM’s brother also worry! Ayo, yo. . .isa taraha, hama mara jaenge (like this, we will die!)

Q 84. Were the contents of your 1st statutory declaration true?

A. Yes.

Q 85. Were you forced to sign the 1st statutory declaration under duress?

A. Absolutely not. (See the video here: Was PI intimidated or induced?)

Q 86. Were you forced to sign the 2nd statutory declaration under duress?

A. Yes, because I was fearful for the safety of my family and I did not read the contents of the 2nd statutory declaration before I was asked to sign it.

Part 1: The mystery unveiled

Part 2: Bala’s prison without bars

Part 3: The Malaysian police catch up with Bala

Part 4: Bala finds his life turned upside down

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• May be Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan was prepare his doss…
• Bala bombshell goes off half-cocked
• Bala fingers Najib circles in video series

Responses to “Datuk Nazim Razak, the younger brother of Najib.said Rosmah was very happy with me for retracting”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

Push to Build Mosques Is Met With Resistancebut in Malaysia IS ISLAM VS ISLAM TO KEEP MUNAFIK UMNO IN POWER

Barisan Nasional's (BN) Datuk Mohamed Aziz today issued a stern warning for non-Muslims to stop interfering in Islamic affairs and laws in questioning the controversial sentencing of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno for drinking beer in public.

Mohamed (BN-Sri Gading) ventured into the thorny issue when he asked a supplementary question on syariah courts in parliament, telling the House that he "cannot stand it when non-Muslims insult the laws of Islam".

"The syariah court is significant for the affairs of Muslims. Everyone knows. But we regret when the punishment handed out by the syariah court is disputed by certain parties that try to interfere, try to insult and try to dismiss (memperlekeh) Islamic laws," Mohamed said.

Mohamed, who is Umno deputy permanent chairman, asked whether contempt of court can be invoked when it came to syariah court decisions before continuing his tirade.

"I want the interference in Islamic affairs, especially by non-Muslims, to stop. (Or else) it will become a different issue, an issue that can affect the feelings of Muslims and could raise unrest in the country.

"Leave it alone. The syariah courts has its punishments which are accepted by Muslims. What business do non-Muslims have in stepping in?" Mohamed said.

In reply, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim told the Dewan Rakyat the court's decision should be respected by all but the controversy here was that Kartika was the first woman to be punished for that offence.

Public debates ignited when Kartika was fined RM5,000 and sentenced to be caned six times by the Kuantan Syariah High Court on July 20 after the 32-year-old woman confessed to violating Islamic laws by drinking beer in a hotel lobby in Cherating, Kuantan on July 11, 2008.

In a supplementary question, opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (PKR-Permatang Pauh) said the "question here was not about people questioning" Islam but on restoring integrity and public confidence in the syariah justice system.

Anwar noted the public would invariably question the justice system when a "small person" was punished for consuming alcohol when it was well known that several "big figures (pembesar)" were known to do the same.

"This is not about questioning the Quran. This is called hypocrisy in the system or inconsistency.

"What is disputed is whether the implementation of laws can help restore the syariah court's integrity in the eyes of Muslims, non-Muslims and the world," Anwar said.

The Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leader then raised the issue of former Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, who was charged with giving a religious talk without state authorisation (tauliah).

Without naming Asri, Anwar lamented that the issue of authorisation to preach (tauliah) was disputed when nobody would dispute the person's qualifications as a religious scholar and a mufti.

Mashita responded that despite one being an ulama, it was not a "big license" to speak about religion prompting Anwar to remark, "So, he has license to be a mufti but no license for tauliah?"

The Dewan Rakyat then erupted into a frenzy of loud jeers and members of parliament speaking in unison until Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar stepped in to control the House.

"Yang buat sibuk ni apahal? Yang Berhormat, if we are brave to speak but not brave to listen then we are not courageous enough," he said.

President Obama faces much criticism from the right and the left.I have been very skeptical of the speech, and expected mundane rhetoric and grand oratory by the master of eloquence. As I started watching and listening to the speech, I realized that there was sincerity in his tone, and humility in his demeanour. He genuinely had worked hard on preparing the draft. Even the best speech writers couldn’t do much for a previous president. As I watched “rapt withal” I actually believed his words.

He walked us through history, the Religious wars (didn’t mention Crusades), Colonialism, Cold War, and the Extremists. He didn’t mention any hijack of any religion and never mentioned the word terror or terrorist. He reached out to Hamas which seems to have responded. Hamas letter to President Obama

The speech had the correct amount of eulogy for Islamic history and the proper amount of blunt talk. It did not lecture the Muslim and did not talk about “Fixing Islam”. He admitted the mistakes in Iran in overthrowing Mossedegh and placing the Shah on the throne. I wondered if the US would ever acknowledge and apologize for the murder of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

He said he wanted to make a new beginning and aptly noted that one speech cannot make a difference. “So long as our differences are defined by our differences..cycle of suspicion and discord must end“.

I started taking notes, but stopped. It was mesmerising.

For the briefest moment “My America” was back. He even talked about leaving Afghanistan. He said Salam Alikum, shukrun and quoted two verses from the Quran. He called Israel’s settlements ‘illegal, something that hadn’t happened since Carter. For the shortest period of time I felt as if things will be OK now. The Crusades would stop and peace would reign in the Khyber.

Even though it jarred me I tired to ignore the mispronunciation of Muslim as MuZlim. As Muslims will point out there is no ”z” in Islam and Muslim. The “z” makes it a different word. Muzloom means something quiet different.

“I have come here to seek a new begining, based upon mutual interest and mutual respect”

America and Islam are not exclusive nad not be in competition..they overlap..dignity of all humna beings.

No single speech can eradicate mistrust…we must say openly to each other what is open in our hearts..a sustained efforts to lsiten to each other..sto

Be consicious of god andspeak always the truth….I will try to speak..interest we share are far more powerful…root

He mentioned the fact that Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States of America. President Barack Obama quoted from a treaty signed by the 2nd president of the United States.

… Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” … And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

It was titled the “Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211),” it contains an extraordinary statement of peaceful intent toward Islam.

The agreement’s 11th article (out of twelve) reads: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The President made six poignant points from Palestine, to Iran to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He mentioned that the US is helping Pakistan with aid. He promised to work for a Palestinian state, and he opposed the Israeli settlements. He reached out to Iran and talked about several special programs for Muslim youth and women. He told his audience that a Muslim woman could wear the hijab in America and that 7 million Muslims were more educated and earned more than the average American.

All in all, the prodigious speech was a job well done. He is one man, and cannot change American policy in a day. We should all think of the effort he has already put in reaching out to Muslims in his personal capacity. That says a lot.

Will there be any action?

Of course the war in Afghanistan will continue and Muslims will continue to die in the battlefields of the Khyber and in Falujah, but he has given all of us hope. Here is the speech that Napoleon Bonaparte made in Cairo Egypt about a century ago.

Before embarking on his Egyptian expedition, he presented himself to the Islamic world as its greatest champion and a great admirer of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). On June 22, 1798, he set out to conquer Egypt, a country he described “as the first theatre of civilisation in the universe”.

“Soldiers”, Bonaparte proclaimed, “You are going to undertake a conquest, the effect of which, upon commerce and civilisation, will be incalculable. The eyes of mankind are fixed upon you. The Mameluke Beys, who tyrannise over the unhappy inhabitants of the banks of the Nile, will no longer exist in a few days after our arrival. The people among whom you are going to live, are Mahometans: the first article of their faith is, ‘there is no other god but God and Mahomet is his Prophet. Do not contradict them. Treat their Muftis and their Imams with respect”.

After establishing his headquarters at Alexandria, Bonaparte issued the following proclamation in Arabic:

“In the name of God, gracious and merciful. There is no god but God; he has no son nor associate in his kingdom. Inhabitants of Egypt! When the Beys tell you the French are come to destroy your religion, believe them not: it is an absolute falsehood. Answer these deceivers, that they are only come to rescue the rights of the poor from the hands of their tyrants, and that the French adore the Supreme Being, and honour the Prophet and his Holy Quran.

“All men are equal in the eyes of God: understanding, ingenuity, and science, alone make a difference between them. As the Beys do not posses any of these qualities, they cannot be worthy to govern the country. Yet they are the only possessors of extensive tracts of lands, beautiful female slaves, excellent horses, and magnificent places! Have they, then, received an exclusive privilege from the Almighty? If so, let them produce it. But the Supreme Being, who is just and merciful towards all mankind, wills, that, in future, none of the inhabitants in Egypt shall be prevented from attaining to the first employments, and the highest honours. The administration, which shall be conducted by persons of intelligence, talents, and foresight, will be productive of happiness and security.

“The French are true Mussulmen! Not long since they marched to Rome, and overthrew the throne of the Pope who excited the Christians against the professors of the Mahometan religion. Our friendship shall be extended to those of the inhabitants of Egypt who shall join us, as also to those who shall remain in their dwellings, and observe a strict neutrality; and, when they have seen our conduct with their own eyes, hasten to submit to us; but the dreadful punishment of death awaits those who shall take up arms for the Beys, and against us: for them their shall be no deliverance, nor shall any trace of them remain”.

Accompanied by his staff and the members of the National Institute, attended also by a powerful guard, and conducted by several Muftis and Imams, Bonaparte commenced the following interesting conversation with Suluman, Ibrahim, and Mahumed, the chief Muftis.

Buonaparte: “Glory to Allah! There is no other god but God, Mahomet is his Prophet, and I am his friend”!

Suluman: “The salutation of peace to the envoy of God! Salutation to thee, also, invincible warrior, favourite of Mahomet”!

Buonaparte: “Mufti, I thank thee: the divine Quran is the delight of my soul, and the object of my contemplation. I love the Prophet, and I hope, ere long, to see and honour his tomb in the Holy City; but my mission is first to exterminate the Mamelukes”.

Ibrahim: “May the angels of victory sweep the dust from thy path, and cover thee with their wings! The Mameluke has merited death”.

Buonaparte: “He has been smitten and delivered over to the black angels, Monkir and Quakir. God, on whom all things depend, has ordained that his dominions shall be destroyed”.

Suluman: “He has extended the hand of rapine over the land, the harvest and the horses, of Egypt”.

Buonaparte: “And over the most beautiful slaves, thrice holy Mufti! Allah has withered his hand: if Egypt be his portion, let him shew the lease which God has given him of it; but God is just and merciful to his people”.

Ibrahim: “Oh! most valiant among the children of Issa! (Jesus Christ) Allah has caused thee to follow the exterminating angel to deliver his land of Egypt”.

Buonaparte: “Has not Mahomet said, that every man who adores God, and performs good works whatever maybe his religion, shall be saved”?

Suluman, Muhamed, Ibrahim (inclining themselves): “He has said so”.

Ibrahim: “Glory to Allah and his Prophet! Who have sent thee into the midst of us to rekindle the faith of the weak, and to open to the faithful the gates of the seventh heaven”?

Buonaparte: “You have spoken my wishes, most zealous Muftis! Be faithful to Allah, the sovereign ruler of the seven marvellous heavens, and to Mahomet, his vizir, who traversed all the celestial mansions in a single night. Be the friends of the Francs, and Allah, Mahomet, and Francs, will reward you”.

Ibrahim: “May the Prophet himself cause thee to sit at his left-hand, on the day of the resurrection, after the third sound of the trumpet”.

Buonaparte: “The hour of political resurrection has arrived for all who groan under oppression. Muftis, Imams, Mullahs, Dervises, and Kalenders! Instruct the people of Egypt, encourage them to join us in our labours, to complete the destruction of Beys and Mamelukes: favour the commerce of the Francs in your country and their endeavours to arrive at the ancient Land of Brama. Let them have storehouses in your ports”.

Suluman (inclining himself): “Thou hast spoken like the most learned of the Mullahs. We place faith in thy words: we shall serve thy cause, and God hears us”.

Buonaparte: “God is great, and his works are marvellous: the salutation of peace be upon you, Thrice Holy Muftis!”

The snake, it is said, covers its prey with saliva before devouring it. Before launching the attack on Afghanistan, President Bush visited the Islamic Centre in Washington DC and addressing the gathering quoted from the Holy Quran: “In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule”!

Obama’s speech was impressive, but he delivered it in a country where an aging dictator is passing power to his son, where the country is crumbling to dust because of repression and stagnation. So words are not enough. What is needed is action, not just fine rhetoric. The Islamic world would judge Obama not by his intentions, not by his words, but by his deeds. Roedad Khan, The News

We wish him well and God speed!

in the USA there are many Christians and Jews shouting “Bad! Bad!” This most certainly spells trouble for Obama.On September 12, 1991, in the third year of his presidency, George Bush Sr publicly denounced the Israel lobby, which was storming around the halls of Congress with the intent of forcing through loan guarantees for Israel. The Bush administration was holding up the guarantees in an effort to induce Israel’s Shamir government to stop planting illegal settlements. Bush went on tv and said he was “up against some powerful political forces. I heard today there were something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We’ve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.”

There’s a good case for saying that with those words Bush Sr signed the death warrant for his re-election. True, he had Ross Perot winning 19 per cent of the vote. But he also lost the Jewish vote and his son never forgot it. I’d guess that much earlier in his presidency Obama is on his way to losing it too. The guy must know what he’s doing, and if he doesn’t, there’s always Rahm Emanuel at his elbow to remind him. Obama in Cairo: High Words, Low Truths By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaxZPiiKyMw

Here is the complete Text of President Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo University, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.

Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo andto be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.

I’m grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. AndI’m also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu-alaikum.

(APPLAUSE)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.

More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.

All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there’s been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts andthat too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, andto seek common ground.

As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God andspeak always the truth.

(APPLAUSE)

That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.

As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity andpeace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities…

(APPLAUSE)

It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

(APPLAUSE)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,

The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.

They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They’ve excelled in our sports arenas. They’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. Andwhen the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oathto defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.

(APPLAUSE)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

(APPLAUSE)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as…

(APPLAUSE)

Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.

We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.

We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.

Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.

(APPLAUSE)

But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt…

(APPLAUSE)

… let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.

When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.

(APPLAUSE)

That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.

Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.

(APPLAUSE)

We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida andthe Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.

The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries andare trying to expand their reach.

These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.

The Holy Quranteaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as it if has killed all mankind.

(APPLAUSE)

And the Holy Quranalso says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

(APPLAUSE)

The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who’ve been displaced.

That’s why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

(APPLAUSE)

Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.

I have made it clear to the Iraqi people…

(APPLAUSE)

I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. And that’s why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.

(APPLAUSE)

We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.

We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

(APPLAUSE)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America’s strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot andgassed to death by the Third Reich.

Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.

It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that’s why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

(APPLAUSE)

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.

Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.

But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they’re out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.

(APPLAUSE)

So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.

Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devote Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.

That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.

This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it’s being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there’s a disturbing tendency to measure one’sown faith by the rejection of somebody else’s faith.

The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.

That’s why I’m committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.

We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that’s why we’re forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

That’s why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.

Aroundthe world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue — the sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

(APPLAUSE)

I know…

(APPLAUSE)

I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

(APPLAUSE)

And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear, issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we’ve seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.

Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.

(APPLAUSE)

Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.

That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

(APPLAUSE)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.

Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, andour faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.

In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.

Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too…

(APPLAUSE)

And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.

(APPLAUSE)

At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students are internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers andchildren around the world and create a new, onlinenetwork so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.

Today, I’m announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. Andwe will also expandpartnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.

Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. AndI want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, the remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It’s easier to start wars than to end them. It’s easier to blame others than to look inward. It’s easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

(APPLAUSE)

This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn’t new, that isn’t black or white or brown, that isn’t Christian or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It’s a faith in other people. And it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Qurantells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.

The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.

The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

(APPLAUSE)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

END

By JOHN TAGLIABUE

November 12, 2009

COPENHAGEN — Paris has its grand mosque, along the Seine. So does Rome, the city of the pope. Yet despite a sizable Muslim population, this Danish city has nothing but the occasional tiny storefront Muslim place of worship.

The city, Denmark's capital, is now inching toward construction of not one, but two grand mosques. In August, the city council approved the construction of a Shiite Muslim mosque, replete with two 104-foot-tall minarets, in an industrial quarter on the site of a former factory. Plans are also afoot for a Sunni mosque. But it has been a long and complicated process, tangled up in local politics and the publication four years ago of cartoons mocking Islam.

The difficulties reflect the tortuous path Denmark has taken in dealing with its immigrants, most of whom are Muslim. Copenhagen in particular has been racked by gang wars, with shootouts and killings in recent months between groups of Hells Angels and immigrant bands.

The turmoil has fed the popularity of an anti-immigrant conservative party, the Danish People's Party. In city elections scheduled for Nov. 17, the People's Party, by some estimates, could double the roughly 6 percent of the vote it took in the last municipal election.

Denmark is not alone in grappling with the question. In Italy, the rightist Northern League opposes mosques in Italian cities; in Switzerland, voters will go to the polls on Nov. 29 in a referendum to decide whether to ban the construction of minarets.

In Denmark, it was the cartoons, one of which depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, that gave the initial impetus to a movement for a mosque.

"I wrote a front-page story saying we somehow had to reconnect to the Muslims, to collect money to build a mosque as a sign of solidarity," said Herbert Pundik, 82, the former editor of the Danish daily Politiken. Mr. Pundik, speaking by phone from Tel Aviv, where he now lives, said that within 24 hours there had been more than 1,000 positive responses. But then the Muslim reaction to the cartoons turned violent, with attacks on Danish embassies in several cities, including Beirut and Damascus.

"The steam went out of the project," Mr. Pundik said.

Yet it did not die. Bijan Eskandani, the architect of the Shiite mosque, said he found inspiration for his design in the "Persian element in Islamic art," which he said consisted of a "special lyric, poetic attitude." The Shiite community, he said in written answers to questions, lacked the financial means to acquire a suitable site for a mosque. "The building lot they have is situated in an ugly, unattractive, inharmonious gray factory area," he said, adding that, "a sparkling mosque there may make a difference."

The very word Persian sends chills down Martin Henriksen's spine. "We are against the mosque," said Mr. Henriksen, 29, one of the People's Party's five-member directorate, in an interview in Copenhagen's Parliament building. "It's obvious to everyone that the Iranian regime has something to do with it," he said. "The Iranian regime is based on a fascist identity that we don't want to set foot in Denmark."

Since becoming party to the national government coalition in 2001, the People's Party has helped enact legislation to stem the flow of immigrants and raise the bar for obtaining citizenship. Immigrants, Mr. Henriksen insists, "need to show an ability and a will to become Danes." He cites past Jewish immigration as an example. "Many Jews have come to Denmark since the 16th century," he said. "We don't have discussions about whether to build synagogues." There are at least four synagogues in the city.

Abdul Wahid Pedersen, whose parents are Scandinavian, converted to Islam years ago. "I was 28, a child of the 60s," he said. Now 55, he is chairman of a 15-member committee promoting construction of a grand mosque for Copenhagen's Sunni Muslims.

He concedes that of the estimated 250,000 Muslims in a Danish population of 5.5 million, only about 35,000 are Sunnis. Yet he defends the need for a grand mosque and says that while the Sunni community is not soliciting financing from Saudi Arabia, as the People's Party contends, he has no problem accepting a donation. "If someone wants to chip in, that is O.K.," he said, in the shop in a working-class neighborhood where he sells Islamic literature, prayer rugs and other religious objects. "But they will have no influence on running the place." Mr. Pedersen said his committee was even considering installing wind turbines atop the minarets and covering the mosque's dome with one large solar panel.

The city's deputy mayor, Klaus Bondam, 45, defends the right of Muslims to their mosques. The minarets, he said, would be "quite slim towers, we're not going to be Damascus or Cairo." The city had also made clear there would be no calling to prayers from the mosques' minarets. As to the charge of foreign underwriting, Mr. Bondam said it did not concern him as long as the sources were listed openly.

But he said he feared that the debate over the mosques could help the People's Party double its share of the vote in this month's local elections to as much as 12 percent. "It's the little discomfit of people of other religion or background," he said. "Why can't they be like me?"

For Toger Seidenfaden, 52, the present editor of Politiken, the People's Party is "democratic and parliamentary — they are not brownshirts." But he said they were a "very Danish, nationalist party — they'd like Denmark before globalization."

On the broad avenue called Njalsgade, where the Sunni mosque is to be built on a vacant lot, Preben Anderson, 61, a bricklayer, said he had nothing against a mosque, though he pointedly said that he could not speak for his neighbors. "We have churches," he said. "We have to have mosques." He stood across the street from where weeds and junk now cover the lot where the Sunni mosque could one day stand. One neighborhood resident, asked if he could point out the site where the mosque would be built, professed not to know.

Yet, Per Nielsen, 56, a retired history teacher, said the economic slowdown and the gang wars in nearby neighborhoods were feeding the popularity of the People's Party. As for the mosque, he said, "There's very strong pressure — people living here don't want it."

Photo: Shiite Muslims recently collected money after Friday Prayer for the construction of a grand mosque in Copenhagen.

Deobandi, Wahhabi, and Salafi strains of the faith – propagated through their madrasas and through media reporting on their activites. The teachings of Sufis prohibit taking the life of any innocent human being. Sufis generally feel that following Islamic law or jurisprudence (or fiqh) is only the first step on the path to perfect submission; they focus on the internal or more spiritual aspects of Islam, such as perfecting one's faith and fighting one's own ego (nafs). Jihad, according to Sufi beliefs, is purging one's mind of evils and fighting against them by controlling material desires Sufism is a moderate open-indeed philosophy that does not reject non-Muslims. To quote the view of a staunch Barelvi "The Prophet stressed the rights of one's neighbours, and these include non-Muslims, and said that he who gives unnecessary sorrow to his neighbour would go to hell". Another Sufi says "No religion, properly interpreted, allows for killing innocent people". A Barelvi Islamic scholar says 'Killing an innocent Hindu just because he isn't a Muslim is certainly not a jihad'. -- Rohan Bedi
URL of this page: http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1938
-------

International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research IDSS Singapore
Have Pakistanis Forgotten Their Sufi Traditions?
By Rohan Bedi, April 2006
Contents
5. Fatwas – Controls Needed 6
6. Madrasa Graduates - Masterminds or Foot Soldiers 7
. Not Masterminds
. Foot Soldiers
7. Religious Beliefs – The Barelvi Angle 9
. The Philosophy of Sufism
. The Barelvis versus Deobandis
. The Shias and Sufism
. The Best Bet
. The Governments Approach to Sufism
. The Governments Approach to Minorities
8. Other Key Issues 12
. Nationalism – Punjabi Domination
. ISI – A Key Player
. Islamic Army

5. Fatwas – Controls Needed
Islamic law (Sharia) is not a monolithic body of rules and regulations. There are four Sunni schools of law (Hanafi (Barelvi, Deobandi); Maliki; Shafi; Hanbali (Wahhabi)) classed together as Ahle-fiqh. Although the Barelvis and the Deobandis follow the Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence, their interpretations of it radically differ. Barelvis represent oral orthodoxy cushioned by devotional practices; Deobandis represent literate orthodoxy with a strict 18 'Ecumenism and Islam's enemy within', Himal South Asian,March 2004 adherence to the classical texts of Islam.19 A later development is the Ahle-hadith school that believed that it is not Fiqh but the sayings of the Prophet which should be enforced as they are, since they contained fundamental and unchangeable law i.e., after scrutiny, the Hadith occupies the same position and authority as the Koran. The Shias are also divided into sub-sect Because Islamic law is based upon the hadith, rejection of some Sunni hadith (sayings of the Prophet and his companions) means that the Shia version of the law differs somewhat from the Sunni version. The Shia Hadith also includes the sayings of the Shia Imams who are considered to be divinely inspired. Shia legal interpretation, in contrast to Sunni interpretation allows more space for human reasoning. The absurdity20 of some of the Fatwas issued by the ulema in South Asia suggests that there is a need to reform the process of such Fatwas being issued and who is eligible to issue them. The Fatwa system concentrates power with the ulema who, depending on their background and the madrasa they were educated in, can issue Fatwas which in many cases are not based on the facts of the case, and do not reflect a modern view of situations. Depending on whether Islamic law is in force or not, the controls on issuance of Fatwas differ across countries. In Europe, the recent Fatwas issued after 7/7 reflect a modern approach in condemning the acts of violence, this should continue. The Pakistan Ulema (scholars) Council is currently the top mainstream religious body that includes senior clerics from all branches of the majority Sunni sect. Its earlier Fatwas include jihad against America and its allies if they attacked Afghanistan. In Pakistan, some Fatwas are reported to be issued under governmental pressure and direction, for example the Fatwa of May 2005 against suicide attacks on Muslims in Pakistan However, the decree did not apply to those waging jihad and running freedom movements in places like Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir.
Without proper controls on the quality of Fatwa's being issued, to ensure a modern and moderate Islamic viewpoint, there is the obvious danger that orthodox and radical Islamic ideas get perpetuated.

6. Madrasa Graduates - Masterminds or Foot Soldiers?
Not Masterminds
The 7/7 bombings in London were widely thought to be a result of brainwashing of the three Pakistani bombers in madrasas. However, according to news reports quoting sources at the Prime Ministers offices in Downing Street, there is no evidence that any madrasa was visited by any members of the cell at any point on their journey. So it may not be the case that madrasas are responsible for "brainwashing" the trio. There is considerable proof that the trio were radicalized in Yorkshire through the Islamist literature and videos that were available beneath the counter of their local Islamic bookshop. When they arrived in Pakistan, they were probably fully brainwashed and used their time making contact with al Qaeda and Pakistani militant groups to train in explosives. "Indoctrination" also occurs at local mosques and not just at madrasas.
A number of recent studies have emphasized the point that there is a fundamental distinction to be made between madrasa graduates – who tend to be pious villagers from impoverished Economic backgrounds, possessing little technical sophistication – and the sort of middle-class, politically literate global jihadis who plan al Qaeda operations around the world. Neither
Osama bin Laden nor any of the men who carried out the Islamist assaults on America or Britain was trained in a madrasa or was a qualified alim, or cleric. The French scholar Gilles Kepel says that the new breed of global jihadis are not the urban poor of the third world so much as the "privileged children of an unlikely marriage between Wahhabism and Silicon Valley, which al-Zawahiri (bin Laden' s chief of staff) visited in the 1990s. They were heirs not only to jihad and the umma ('family' of believers) but also to the electronic revolution and American style globalization". There are also other similar viewpoints. A fairly sophisticated analysis of the global jihadis is: Understanding Terror Networks by a former CIA official, Marc Sageman. Sageman examined the records of 172 al Qaeda-linked terrorists. His conclusions have gone against the conventional wisdom about who joins jihadi groups: two thirds of his sample were middle-class and university-educated; they are generally technically-minded professionals and several have a PhD. Islamic terrorism, like its Christian and Jewish predecessors, is a largely bourgeois enterprise with professionals spearheading it. David Leppan the CEO of World-Check states - "A review of our suspected terrorist database underscores that the al Qaeda-type terrorist is very much an educated professional with a sophisticated network, including links with some Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) in certain countries, to support their operations." Peter Bergen of John Hopkins University recently came to similar conclusions when he published his study of seventy-five Islamist terrorists involved in anti-Western attacks.
According to Bergen, 53 percent of the terrorists had a university degree, while "only 52 percent of Americans have been to college." The above analysis underscores some key points. By and large, madrasa students simply do not have the technical expertise necessary to carry out the kind of sophisticated attacks we have recently seen led by al Qaeda. Instead the concerns of most adrasa graduates remain more traditional: the correct fulfilment of rituals, how to wash correctly before prayers, and the proper length to grow a beard. In contrast, few al Qaeda agents seem to have more than the most basic grasp of Islamic law or learning. In reality, al Qaeda operatives tend to be highly educated and their aims, explicitly political. The men who planned the September 11 attacks were not products of the traditional Islamic educational system, even in its most radical form. Instead, they are graduates of Western-style institutions. They are confused but highly educated middleclass professionals. Mohamed Atta was an architect; Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden' s chief of staff, was a paediatric surgeon; Ziad Jarrah, one of the founders of the Hamburg cell, was a dental student who later turned to aircraft engineering; Omar Sheikh, the kidnapper of Daniel Pearl, was a product of the London School of Economics. Faisal Devji of the New
School, New York points out just how deeply unorthodox bin Laden is, with his cult of martyrs and frequent talk of dream and visions, all of which derive from popular, mystical, and Shia Islamic traditions, against which the orthodox Sunni ulema have long struggled.
Foot Soldiers
While the above is true of the al Qaeda leadership, it is not true of the foot soldiers that made up its ranks especially in the Taliban movement. Many of the Taliban who took control of Afghanistan in 1996 had emerged from Pakistan's madrasas. The 9/11 Commission report highlighted Pakistan's deep involvement with international terrorism. The history of modern day al Qaeda terrorism can be traced back to the training camps of the Pakistanis in Afghanistan to fight in the Kashmir cause. This was fuelled by the Soviet occupancy of Afghanistan which led to the US funding of the jihadis. The recent 2005 National Geographic Channel program 'Inside 9/11' leads to the undeniable conclusion that this process along with the climate of extremism bred in madrasas in Pakistan created the atmosphere for a few key terrorist leaders to emerge causing the events of September 11. While 15 of the 19 suspected hijackers (the implementers) were Saudis, the events of September 11 can be traced back to a few key Pakistani terrorist figures as the masterminds to the evil idea. Whether the new lot of terrorists who are graduates of Western universities actually attend a madrasa is not very important, they are certainly influenced by the ideas of radical Islam bred in these institutions that are then exported/ publicized through the media/ mosques. The ranks and officers of the Pakistan army are also under a similar influence. More directly, the Haqqania, one of the most radical of the madrasas in the NWFP was the training ground for many of the Taliban leaders, including Mullah Omar. Whenever the Taliban put out a call for fighters, the Director would simply close down the madrasa and send his students off to fight. In 1994 many of the Pakistan fighters in Afghanistan were religious students of the madrasas in Balochistan and NWFP, both lawless areas. A significant proportion f the madrasas in existence in Pakistan today are run by, or connected to, the radical Islamist political parties such as the MMM of the NWFP. 'It is estimated that as much as 15% of Pakistan's madrasas preach violent jihad, while a few have been said to provide covert military training' 21. Other estimates put the figure at 10%22. In any case with 100,000-200,000 students being educated at madrasas with links to Islamic militants, Pakistan is a virtual factory for producing Islamic extremists. Arabinda Acharya of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, IDSS Singapore says "Many of these schools may not be open in preaching violent jihad and do so in small groups out of the limelight." The madrasa system is in need of reform as in Pakistan it is perhaps the only means by which much of the poor can get a free education.

7. Religious Beliefs – The Barelvi Angle
There is a tendency to view the Muslim community (and its segment of radicals) as a monolith, acting as a common unit with a common agenda and little dissent. This is far from the truth even though all sects follow the five pillars of Islam and believe in the six pillars of faith. In Pakistan, the tenor of religious belief has been radicalized: the tolerant Sufi-minded Barelvi form of Islam is now out of fashion, overtaken by the sudden rise of the more hard-line and politicized reformist Deobandi, Wahhabi, and Salafi strains of the faith – propagated through their madrasas and through media reporting on their activites. For example, in late 2000 young religious students encouraged by radical madrasa teachers and local mullahs ordered the burning of television sets, video players and satellite dishes in a number of villages in the North West
Frontier Province (NWFP). 'This is an ongoing process,' said one mullah who helped organize a TV bonfire. 'We will continue to burn TV sets, VCRs and other similar things to spread the message that their misuse is threatening our religion, society and family life.' However, General Musharraf has never shown any sympathy for the Deobandi mindset. His claim that only 10 to 15% of the Pakistani people opposed his decision to align Pakistan with the US rested on the fact that some 15 per cent of Pakistan' s population who are Sunni Muslims consider themselves part of the Deobandi tradition. Compared to the Deobandis, a far greater number some 60% are the arelvis who have a moderate and tolerant interpretation of Islam based on Sufi beliefs.
The Philosophy of Sufism
Sufism has historically provided Islam with an alternative to orthodoxy and has won it most of its converts The Sufi Islamic traditions evolved over history with a degree of interaction with Hinduism on the sub-continent. It is a school that includes philosophers and mystics. Sufism embraces the Koran and most of Shia and Sunni Islam's beliefs. Sufis believe that Sufi teachings are the essence of every religion, and indeed of the evolution of humanity as a whole. The teachings of Sufis prohibit taking the life of any innocent human being. Sufis generally feel that following Islamic law or jurisprudence (or fiqh) is only the first step on the path to perfect submission; they focus on the internal or more spiritual aspects of Islam, such as perfecting one's faith and fighting one's own ego (nafs). Jihad, according to Sufi beliefs, is purging one's mind of evils and fighting against them by controlling material desires Sufism is a moderate open-indeed philosophy that does not reject non-Muslims. To quote the view of a staunch Barelvi "The Prophet stressed the rights of one's neighbours, and these include non-Muslims, and said that he who gives unnecessary sorrow to his neighbour would go to hell". Another Sufi says "No religion, properly interpreted, allows for killing innocent people". A Barelvi Islamic scholar says 'Killing an innocent Hindu just because he isn't a Muslim is certainly not a jihad'. In a legitimate Islamic jihad non-combatant non-Muslims must not be harmed. Rather, he says, they must be protected. 23 In Pakistan with the spread of Deobandi madrasas, this sort of world-view is being negated. The Sufis focus on personal spirituality. They believe that God can be found in the human heart, an intuition shared by both Muslim and Hindu mystics, that paradise lay within - if you could find it. As the great mystic Jalaluddin Rumi put it: "The heart is nothing but the sea of light… the place of the vision of God." he Sufis believe that all existence and all religions were one, merely different manifestations of the same divine reality. What was important was not the empty external ritual of the mosque or temple, but simply to understand that divinity can best be reached through the gateway of the human heart- that we all have paradise within us, if we know where to look. The central concept in Sufism is "love". Sufis believe that, love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe. God desires to recognize beauty, and as if one looks at a mirror to see oneself, God "looks" at itself within the dynamics of nature. Since everything is a reflection of God, the school of Sufism practices to see the beauty inside the apparent ugly, and to open arms even to the most evil one. This infinite tolerance is expressed in the most beautiful way perhaps by the famous Sufi philosopher Mevlana: "Come, come, whoever you are. Worshiper,
Wanderer, Lover of Leaving; ours is not a caravan of despair. Though you have broken your vows a thousand times...Come, come again, Come." The Sufis succeeded in bringing together Hindu24 and Muslim in a religious movement which spanned the apparently unbridgeable gulf separating the two religions. For Sufism with its Holy Men and visions, healings and miracles, and its emphasis on the individual's search for direct knowledge of the divine, has always borne remarkable similarities to Hinduism, and from the beginning the Sufis acted as a bridge between the two religions.25One of the greatest Sufis Ibn Arabi, who lived more than 700 years ago expresses the universal spirit of the journey: 26 "My heart has become capable of every form: It is a pasture for gazelles And a convent for Christian monks And a temple for idols And the pilgrim's Ka'ba And the tables of the Torah And the book of the Koran. I follow the religion of love: Whatever way Love's camels take, that is my religion and my faith"

The Barelvis versus Deobandis
The Sufi-minded Barelvis believe that there is no contradiction between practicing Islam and drawing on the subcontinents ancient religions practices. For the Barelvis, the holy Prophet is a superhuman figure whose presence is all around believers at all times. Barelvis emphasise a love of Muhammad, a semi-divine figure with unique foreknowledge. The Deobandis, who also revere the Prophet, argue he was the perfect person, but still only a man, a mortal. The Barelvis follow many Sufi practices, including use of music (Qawwali) and intercession by their teacher. A key difference between Barelvi and Deobandi is hat Barelvi's believe in intercession between humans and Divine Grace. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs, reaching ultimately to Prophet Mohammad, who intercede on their behalf with Allah. The Barelvis regularly offer prayers to holy men or pirs, both dead and alive. It is a more superstitious - but also a more tolerant – tradition of Islam in the Indian sub-continent. Their critics claim that Barelvis are guilty of committing Prophet lived his life).27" Deobandis reject Sufi approaches and many are likely to describe this school as 'Mumbo-Jumbo'.

The Shias and Sufism
The Shia's also having a Sufi tradition (though not as strong as the Sunni-Barelvis because of the influence of the conservative Iranian Shias). The founder of Pakistan Muhammed Ali Jinnah was a moderate Ismalia-Shia. Ismalis are clearly identified with esoteric and Gnostic religious doctrines associated with Sufism. Barelvi Sunnis are generally more tolerant of Shia rituals (than the puritanical Deobandi Sunnis) and even participate in their ceremonies.28 The Northern Areas in Pakistan have an ancient Sufi culture (Shia and Barelvi-Sunni) which is under threat by radicals
The Best Bet
Since Pakistan's creation, Barelvis, who make up 60% of the population, have been the most effective obstacle against Islamic radicals. Richard Kurin, an American academic, studied life in a Pakistani village and provided some interesting insights into the lesser known and more liberal/tolerant side of the population. Mainstream Sunni Barelvis have been conspicuous by their absence from militant organisations. With rare exceptions, Barelvi groups, as a matter of rule, are non-violent29
The Governments Approach to Sufism
The post-colonial Pakistani government put Sufi shrines under the control of the Auqaf Department (the government department of religious endowments) seeking to weaken the powers of the spiritual heirs of the saints. . The pamphlets published by the department expunged the miraculous from the legends, repainting the lives of Sufi saints in a conservative light. The powers of the department were expanded over time and the same policy remains today. The qaf Department, under then President Zia, preferred graduates of the Deobandi- Sunni School and hundreds of mosques that were being run by Barelvis thus fell into Deobandi hands. . Similarly Deobandis were given preference as preachers in the military. . Distribution of zakat funds were lopsided in favour of Deobandi, Ahle-Hadith and JI madrasas (Zakat, according to Qur'anic injunctions, cannot be used for mosques or educational projects like madrasas) The Auqaf Department and puritanical Deobandi-Salafi-JI Sunni movements have considerably weakened Sufi Islam and its Barelvi component; despite this effort it still has the largest following.
The Governments Approach to Minorities30
The US Department of State's 'International Religious Freedom Report' November 2005. Provides a grim picture of Pakistan's treatment of minority faiths. The extracts below highlight that a serious problem of discrimination against minorities exists in Pakistan perpetuated by the
Government itself: "The Government fails to protect the rights of religious minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the Government's failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different faith fostered religious intolerance and acts of violence and intimidation against religious minorities.". "Sunni Muslims appeared to receive favourable consideration in government hiring and advancement. All those wishing to obtain government identification documents as Muslims have to declare an oath on belief in the finality of the Prophethood, a provision designed to discriminate against Ahmadis.". "Religious minorities, including Shia, contended that the Government persistently discriminated against members of their communities in hiring for the civil service and in admissions to government institutions of higher learning. Promotions for all minority groups appeared limited within the civil service."
. "Members of minority religions volunteered for military service in small numbers, and there are no official obstacles to their advancement. However, in practice non- Muslims rarely, if ever, rose above the rank of colonel and were not assigned to politically sensitive positions."
. "A chaplaincy corps provided services for Muslim soldiers, but no similar services were available for religious minorities." "The blasphemy laws were routinely used to harass religious minorities and liberal Muslims and to settle personal scores or business rivalries." [In spite of this the government has not had the will to push through reforms albeit an attempt was made.]
The above opinion is the official view of the US Government, which regards Pakistan as a key ally in its global war on terror. It is an unbiased view underscoring that the government of Pakistan needs to set a better example of 'enlightened moderation'. Besides the above, the Pakistani administration has run a ruthless programme from 1988 to turn the Shias into a minority in the Northern Areas through resettling Sunnis from Punjab and the NWFP. The Shia revolt of 1988 was brutally crushed by Musharraf himself purportedly with help from Osama bin Laden31.
8. Other Key Issues
Nationalism – Punjabi Domination
Importantly, the history of Pakistan suggests that most of the secessionist/ autonomy movements whether the Bengalis (Bangladesh), Sindhis, Balochis, Mohajirs, Seraikis or the Pukhtoons are a reaction to the attitude of Punjabi Muslims who have dominated the political landscape and the army. Even Kashmiri Muslims are now wary of Pakistan for the same reasons. This trend needs to be reversed as this environment breeds extremist Islamic parties.
ISI – A Key Player
The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) is a very powerful Islamic institution that is often accused of being "rogue". However, its efforts to back the Taliban and to foster the Kashmiri insurgency were state-approved. In neither case was the ISI proceeding without the sanction of the military and political leadership. The fact that many of the senior officers do not work in the organization on a permanent basis, but are seconded from the army, clearly works in Musharraf's favoured and limits the growth of an institutional 'ISI view'. Since the ISI was supplying and training Islamic radicals who had been active in Kashmir, there are bound to have misgivings with regards to Musharraf' s current policies though there is no indication that they are attempting to overturn these policies.
Islamic Army
The Pakistani army is a significant Islamic institution that needs to be de-Islamised. To quote an editorial in the armed forces weekly journal Hilal in 1996: "By Allah' s grace no other official, semi-official or non-official institution of Pakistan has been so attached and devoted to Islam in thought and action as the armed forces of Pakistan. Throughout the whole world, yes throughout the world, no armed force is so irrevocably devoted to Islam as the Pakistani armed forces." In March 1996, for example, Hilal ran an item that described the proper role of the 'The Soldiers of Allah'. It was clear to all those who read Hilal that while some elements of the army remained as modernist as ever, others had the passion and the confidence to advance a radical Islamist agenda. Furthermore, without the support of the top generals, it would be impossible to publish such articles in the Hilal. The 'beard counts' at annual ceremonies inducting new officers into the army has been steady at 15 per cent, though many say that at the top of the army only a tiny percentage could be described as having strong religious views and this would remain the case through the process of imination. The radical Islamist sentiment of some former Pakistani soldiers is plain for all to see in the Tanzeemul khwan movement (Islamic movement to introduce Muslim law throughout Kashmir and to prevent Hindu Kafirs from resettling in Kashmir). Based in a madrasa 90 miles from Islamabad, the organization is made up of retired Pakistan army personnel. Furthermore, since General Zia' s time, the students of Deobandi madrasas were favoured over the Barelvis in the recruitment of preachers in the military and this trend is still visible.32 The implications of such trends are profound. Should there ever be an Islamic-based challenge to Pakistan's existing system of government the attitude of the army would probably be decisive. If it were ever faced with mass Islam-inspired street protests in Pakistan, some men may not obey an order to fire on the masses and the army might split in this event. This can be a disaster if these factions turn rogue and join the fundamental Islamic groups.

References
19 The state of sectarianism in Pakistan, ICG, Asia Report No 95,
18 April 2005
20 The book 'The World of Fatwas' by Arun Shourie, 2005 highlights the absurdity of many Fatwas
21 'A Largely Bourgeois Endeavor: Al Qaida-Style Terrorists are not the Type Who Seek out Madrasas', William Dalrymple, Guardian UK, July 20 2005
22 'Can Pakistan Reform?', Robert T. McLean, FrontPageMagazine.com, January 5 2006
23 'Hindu-Muslim Relations in Jammu: Alternative Ways of Understanding Islam', Qalandar, March 2005
24 Even today many Hindus worship Sufi saints like Sai Baba of Shirdi
25 'The Real Islam', William Dalrymple, TimeAsia Magazine 2004
26 The Mystics of Islam, by R. A. Nicholson, first published in 1914, is a classic and definitive introduction to the message of Sufism
27 Globalsecurity.org on Barelvi Islam 28 The state of sectarianism in Pakistan, ICG, Asia Report No 95,
18 April 2005
29 Pakistan: Madrasas, Extremism and the Military, ICG Asia
Report No 36, 29 July 2002 as amended on 15 July 2005
30 International Religious Freedom Report, US Department of State, and November 2005 31 Musharraf's Ban: An Analysis, South Asia Analysis Group, 18 January 2002