Eric Margolis - OSAMA 10. THE US: 0

[Cheguvera]

Eric Margolis is one of a handful of western analysts/writers who has a deep and nuanced understanding of the Muslim World...Below is his latest weekly column:

www.ericmargolis.com

OSAMA 10. THE US: 0
Eric Margolis

January 11, 2010
To better understand why Osama bin Laden is so far winning his struggle to oust the western powers from the Muslim world, let us go back to 1986, when I was covering the anti-Soviet war in then almost unknown Afghanistan.
I called on the grandly titled “Afghan Information Center” in Peshawar, Pakistan. Peshawar was a wild and dangerous place. I called it, “Dodge City meets the Arabian Nights” in my book on Afghanistan, `War at the Top of the World.”

The information center turned out to be a drab little office filled with mimeographed pamphlets and piles of dusty books.

The director was a short, thin man in a torn sweater named Abdullah Azzam. We spoke at length of the anti-Soviet jihad (struggle) in Afghanistan being waged by Afghan and Arab mujahidin.

Then, Azzam told me, `when we have driven the Communist imperialists from Afghanistan, we will go on and drive the American imperialists from Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world.’

I was absolutely floored. Except for Communists, a notorious bunch of liars, I had never heard anyone call my beloved America an imperialist power. In those days, the US appeared the acme of good – in large part because its rival, the Soviet Union, looked so wicked.

But after the USSR collapsed, absolute power absolutely corrupted Washington’s ruling circles and drove them to seek “full spectrum domination” of the globe and its energy resources rather than a cooperative new world order.

Sheik Abdullah Azzam was the teacher and spiritual mentor of a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden. Azzam gave bin Laden the blueprint for his later war against the west.

Azzam was murdered in 1989, likely by a western intelligence service. His pupil, Osama, launched a seemingly Quixotic mission to overthrow the western-backed dictatorships and monarchies that misruled the Muslim world, and drive western power from the region.

Bin Laden proclaimed his grand strategy in the 1990’s. He would oust the modern `Crusaders’ by luring the US and its allies into a series of small, debilitating, hugely expensive wars to bleed and slowly bankrupt the US economy, which he called America’s Achilles’ heel.

Bloody attacks would enrage the US and lure it into one quagmire after another.

Bin Laden was dismissed by western intelligence as a crackpot and “enragé.”

But both the dim-witted President Gorge W. Bush and the intelligent President Barack Obama fell right into Osama’s carefully-laid trap.

Today, Osama’s words haunt us as we witness hysteria and chaos engulf America’s air travel system, the war party in Washington demands the US invade Yemen, and the drums beat for war against Iran.

US airport security officials will be even more panicked when they learn a jihadist recently tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s interior minister, Prince Nayef, by detonating a bomb secreted in his rectum. Will we soon bend and spread for security– just like in prisons?

The American colossus continues to stumble ever deeper into the Muslim world’s violent, tangled affairs at a time when Washington is bankrupt and only runs on Chinese loans. In 2009, the US deficit was US $1.4 trillion. But Washington managed to spend $200 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by loading the costs onto the national credit card.

American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. US Special Forces, air units and CIA mercenaries are involved in combat operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, West Africa, North Africa and the Philippines. A new US base at Djibouti is launching raids into Yemen, Somalia and northern Kenya. US forces aided the failed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006. New US bases are planned in oil-producing West Africa and also in Colombia.

The Red Sea littoral is America’s next major headache. Somalia’s anti-western Shebab movement controls much of that nation’s south and center. Yemen is a hotbed of jihadist activity that increasingly threatens neighboring Saudi Arabia, a vital American ally. Somali pirates could turn from plunder to striking at other western interests.

As soon as the US or its satraps crush one anti-western jihadist group, another springs up somewhere else.

Washington is quietly engineering the breakup of troubled Sudan, Africa’s largest nation, in order to dominate South Sudan’s important oil resources and undermine the regime in Khartoum which Washington has marked for termination.

Even Egypt is growing shaky. The US-backed Mubarak military dictatorship that has ruled the Arab world’s most populous nation with an iron hand since 1981 faces a succession struggle once the 82-year old pharaoh is gone.

Al-Qaida is no longer the tiny organization founded by Osama bin Laden that never numbered more than 300 hard core members. It has morphed into a worldwide movement of like-minded but independent, revolutionary, anti-American groups that share Osama’s militant philosophy. This is precisely the kind of `asymmetrical warfare’ the Pentagon has so long feared.

Ominously, a 2006 World Public Opinion poll showed large majorities in four leading Muslim nations that are key US allies, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia (a third of the Muslim world’s population), believe the US is determined to destroy or undermine Islam. They support attacks on American targets. This was an ominous warning for the United States.

Remember all the claims by the Bush administration that Osama bin Laden was on the run, or out of business? He is still very much in business, and so far making his western enemies look foolish and bumbling.

[kingusama92]

It doesn't matter to me who's winning this nonsense. All I know is that innocent people are losing their lives because of this idiocy.

[Zechariah]

The Soviet Union broke apart when they came into the region with their designs and got their result in the end and it seems that US never learned, amazing thing greed and quest for world domination can do to you.

[d0gers]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 It doesn't matter to me who's winning this nonsense. All I know is that innocent people are losing their lives because of this idiocy.

my sentiments exactly.

[mindless slogging]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 It doesn't matter to me who's winning this nonsense. All I know is that innocent people are losing their lives because of this idiocy.

Very well said. Unfortunately the world we live in works by using pseudo-measures of peoples lives to define success/failure. The more people die, the more successful and powerful an entity you are [c.f. Israel vs Hizbullah].

[Zechariah]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 It doesn't matter to me who's winning this nonsense. All I know is that innocent people are losing their lives because of this idiocy.

Sad but very true. Its the innocent people who always suffer when certain groups try to overpower each other.

Its the story of the world.

[namak]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 It doesn't matter to me who's winning this nonsense. All I know is that innocent people are losing their lives because of this idiocy.

+1

Sad but so true

[Punisher]

Well I recently read a report that Osama Bin Laden has not had any audio/video recordings in the last 1.5 yr or something (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if that's the case, then why is there a constant capitalization on fear by the US, as if Osama is going to spring up from anywhere. If he is'nt in the media then either he's dead or he's laughing in the backgrounds.

This reminds me of that movie, Andaaz Apna Apna where Gogo says: When a child cries, his mother tells him to go to sleep otherwise Gogo will come.

[Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by Punisher Well I recently read a report that Osama Bin Laden has not had any audio/video recordings in the last 1.5 yr or something (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if that's the case, then why is there a constant capitalization on fear by the US, as if Osama is going to spring up from anywhere. If he is'nt in the media then either he's dead or he's laughing in the backgrounds. This reminds me of that movie, Andaaz Apna Apna where Gogo says: When a child cries, his mother tells him to go to sleep otherwise Gogo will come.

Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman of the West. Everyone knows that. To be honest what was supposedly started by him won't end with his death.

Let's say he has died. Will it really deter all these jihadist anti-american groups from carrying out attacks on the West? Not really.

This is a war that America cannot win. Simples. This is not me siding with extremists groups, I'm just stating a fact. We're talking about guerilla warfare on a world wide scale here.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman of the West. Everyone knows that. To be honest what was supposedly started by him won't end with his death. Let's say he has died. Will it really deter all these jihadist anti-american groups from carrying out attacks on the West? Not really. This is a war that America cannot win. Simples. This is not me siding with extremists groups, I'm just stating a fact. We're talking about guerilla warfare on a world wide scale here.

I think the opposite would happen if he were to be confirmed dead. The attacks would increase as the groups would start looking to assert themselves to gain the "upper hand".

It would be catastrophic rather then good. I completely agree with you.

[161]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman of the West. Everyone knows that. To be honest what was supposedly started by him won't end with his death. Let's say he has died. Will it really deter all these jihadist anti-american groups from carrying out attacks on the West? Not really. This is a war that America cannot win. Simples. This is not me siding with extremists groups, I'm just stating a fact. We're talking about guerilla warfare on a world wide scale here.

Osama is a boogieman for Muslims you mean.

He and the rest of the Islamists have hurt the average Muslim more than they have anyone else.

[zam]

Actually, the poster is intorducing a very prominent canadian journalist who knows Afghanistan better than most of us and who favors the Muslim world more than any body else....great introduction mate, thanks.

[Cheguvera]

Originally Posted by zam Actually, the poster is intorducing a very prominent canadian journalist who knows Afghanistan better than most of us and who favors the Muslim world more than any body else....great introduction mate, thanks.

Actually Eric is an american...he is more active on the Canadian scence because his analysis is not particularly popular in the compliant corporate media in America...

[Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by kashif77 Osama is a boogieman for Muslims you mean. He and the rest of the Islamists have hurt the average Muslim more than they have anyone else.

Yeah that's not the definition of a boogeyman. But I see what your saying.

[Cheguvera]

Latest Article by Eric Margolis....

LIGHT AT THE END OF THE AFGHAN TUNNEL?
February 01, 2010

Is it finally light at the end of the Afghan tunnel, or an oncoming express train? Total confusion erupted last week as the US, NATO, the UN and the Kabul government all issued differing views on new plans to end the nine year Afghan war by bombarding Taliban with tens of millions in cash instead of precision bombs.
One thing is clear: the US and its NATO allies are losing the war in Afghanistan in spite of their fearsome arsenal of high tech weapons and war chests of billions of dollars.
Lightly-armed Pashtun tribesmen are living up to their legendary reputation of making Afghanistan the graveyard of empires.

So Washington and London, both in dire financial straits, say they are now ready for a possible peace deal with the Pashtun Taliban and its nationalist allies. But, in spite of a $1.4 trillion deficit, President Barack Obama is asking Congress for an additional $33 billion more for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

If you can’t bomb them into submission, then try buying them off.

A conference was held in London last Thursday to raise tens of millions of dollars to try to bribe lower level Taliban to cooperate with the western occupation and/or lay down its arms.

Bribery is a time-honored tool of war. But it’s not the answer in Afghanistan. The bloody Afghan conflict can only be ended by genuine peace negotiations and withdrawal of all foreign troops.

US commanders in Afghanistan admit they have lost the military initiative. The resistance is steadily gaining ground. Obama’s increasing US and allied troops to 150,000 won’t be enough to defeat Taliban. By year end, US and NATO forces will only equal the number of Soviet forces committed to Afghanistan in the 1980’s.

Meanwhile, Pakistan, without whose cooperation the US cannot wage war in Afghanistan, is in turmoil. The US is infiltrating Xe (formerly Blackwater) and DynCorp mercenaries into Pakistan to protect US military supply routes north from Karachi to Afghanistan, and to operate or defend US air bases in Pakistan.

US mercenaries are also reportedly being used to assassinate militants and enemies of Pakistan’s US-installed government, and to target Pakistan’s nuclear installations for future US action. This, and increasing attacks by US killer drones, have sparked outrage across Pakistan and brought warnings of creeping US occupation.

US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are like a man trying to fix a chimney on the roof of a burning house.

As Pakistan burns, so will Afghanistan. Seventy-five percent of all US and NATO supplies for Afghanistan pass through Pakistan. This past weekend, the first time, NATO supply convoys were attacked by militants in the port of Karachi.

Washington lacks the men, money, and understanding to deal with chaotic Pakistan - never mind chaotic Afghanistan.

Washington, London, Ottawa, Berlin and Paris share the same problem: their war propaganda has so demonized Taliban as terrorists and woman abusers that western politicians are petrified to deal with the tribal movement, and risk being accused of sending soldiers to their deaths in a futile war. The far right will howl “appeasement,” “giving in to terrorism,” and “betraying our boys.”

These advocates of permanent war and torture should be ignored. Afghans have suffered over 3 million deaths in 30 years of wars. They desperately need peace, political stability, and rebuilding, not the current western-installed puppet regime of thieving war lords, drug mafias, and thugs of the old Afghan Communist Party.

The best thing we can do for our western soldiers is to get them out of the Afghan morass before they die in this pointless war, or get stuck there for decades.

The west can’t “win” in Afghanistan. In fact, Washington cannot even define what victory means. The intelligent, straight-talking American ambassador to Kabul, former general Karl Eikenberry, as well a as VP Joe Biden, insist it’s time to start peace talks. We should heed their sensible advice.
The US and its allies need a face-saving way out of Afghanistan. Real peace talks are the answer. Not the ruse long proposed by US Gen. Stanley McChrystal to try to bribe away low-ranking Taliban and so split the Afghan resistance.

This stratagem worked to a degree with Sunni tribesmen in Iraq, but is unlikely to succeed with the proud Pashtun tribes who value honor more than money. Theirs is an antique concept most westerners cannot understand.

Taliban, an anti-Communist religious movement, knew nothing about al-Qaida’s plans to attack the United States. That plot was hatched in Europe, not Afghanistan. Many members of the anti-Communist Taliban and its allies Hisbi Islami and the Haqqani group were former allies of the west and were hailed by President Ronald Reagan as `freedom fighters.’

After 9/11, Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the enraged United States without proper evidence of his guilt because he was an honored guest and hero of the anti-Soviet jihad.

Taliban chose war with the US before betraying a guest. Such men are not to be easily bought.

[Cheguvera]

SPENDING AMERICA INTO RUIN

February 08, 2010

One of history’s most important lessons is that politicians should never be given a free hand to borrow money to cover the costs of wars, overseas adventures, or military spending.
More empires have been brought down by reckless spending than by invaders. The late Soviet Union, which wrecked its economy by buying too many tanks, is the most recent example. Now, the United States appears headed in the same direction.

Even so, President Barack Obama calls the US $3.8 trillion budget he just sent to Congress a major step in restoring America’s economic health.

In fact, it’s another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply addicted to the dangerous drug of debt.

Washington’s deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion this
year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, which the US already owes $1.5 trillion. The United States has put its fate in the hands of two nations who bear it little good will.

Debt service will cost Washington $250 billion, and may reach over a third of the total Federal budget within the next decade. Washington is still paying for past wars while considering starting a new one against Iran.

To understand the immensity of one trillion dollars, one would have had to start spending $1 million daily soon after Rome was founded and continue for 2,738 years until today.

Obama’s total proposed annual military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret `black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan (including bribes); 225,000 military `contractors’ (mercenaries and workers); and veteran’s costs. Add $75 billion (nearly 2.5 times France’s total defense budget) for 16 poorly functioning intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees who keep tripping over one another.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan `surge’ of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion - more than Germany’s total defense budget.

These figures do not account for wear and tear on US military equipment, costs of reconfiguring the US military to wage colonial wars in the Third World, or the cost of replacing worn-out equipment. Pentagon bookkeeping is about as flexible as Enron’s bookkeeping.

No wonder US defense stocks rose after Peace Laureate Obama’s `austerity’ budget.

Military and intelligence spending relentlessly increase as the official unemployment figure hovers near 10% and the economy bleeds red ink. Some estimates put real unemployment at over 20%.

America has become the Sick Man of the Western World, an economic cripple like the defunct Ottoman Empire whose inept financial management was legendary.

The Pentagon colossus now accounts for half of total world military spending. Add America’s rich NATO allies and Japan, and the figure reaches 75%.

China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of US on defense.

There are 750 US military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea. President George W. Bush doubled military spending – much of which accrues to Republican states – to wage his faux war on terror.

Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. America is on a permanent war footing. Many Americans believe the president’s primary role is as a war leader rather than chief executive of the republic.

Like Bush, President Barack Obama is paying for America’s wars through supplemental authorizations – ie putting them on the nation’s already maxed out credit card. Wage war now – pay later. Future generations will be stuck with the bill.

This presidential and congressional jiggery-pokery is the height of public dishonesty.

America’s wars ought to be paid for through taxes, not bookkeeping fraud. If US taxpayers had to actually pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, these conflicts would end in short order.

America needs a fair, honest war tax. But hardly any politicians – save the courageous and honest Rep. Ron Paul – dare admit this hard truth.

The US has clearly reached the point of imperial overreach. Military spending and debt servicing are cannibalizing the US economy, the real basis of its world power. Besides the late USSR, the US also increasingly resembles the dying British Empire in 1945, crushed by immense debts incurred to wage WWII, unable to continue financing or defending the imperium, yet still imbued with imperial pretensions.

It is increasingly clear the president is either not in control of America’s runaway military juggernaut, or working with it.

Sixty years ago, the great President Dwight Eisenhower, whose portrait I keep by my desk, warned Americans to beware of the military-industrial complex. Six decades later, partisans of permanent war, fear-mongering, and world domination have joined Wall Street’s money lenders to put America into thrall.

Increasing numbers of Americans are rightly outraged and fearful of runaway deficits. But many do not understand their political leaders are also spending their nation into ruin through unnecessary foreign wars and a vainglorious attempt to control much of the globe -what neocons call `full spectrum dominance’ – using the canard of terrorism to justify an imperial policy that often closely resembles that of the old British Empire.

If Obama were really serious about restoring America’s economic health, he would demand military spending be slashed, quickly end the Iraq and Afghan wars, and break up the nation’s five giant Frankenbanks that now control 40% of all deposits.

But the president won’t, of course, and neither will Congress. They would rather see the nation go over the financial falls rather than change course.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by kashif77 Osama is a boogieman for Muslims you mean. He and the rest of the Islamists have hurt the average Muslim more than they have anyone else.

what is that btw ? what does islamist mean ? answer that and then i have got too much to say .

[161]

Originally Posted by poisonjet what is that btw ? what does islamist mean ? answer that and then i have got too much to say .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

[Zechariah]

Originally Posted by Cheguvera SPENDING AMERICA INTO RUIN February 08, 2010 One of history’s most important lessons is that politicians should never be given a free hand to borrow money to cover the costs of wars, overseas adventures, or military spending. More empires have been brought down by reckless spending than by invaders. The late Soviet Union, which wrecked its economy by buying too many tanks, is the most recent example. Now, the United States appears headed in the same direction. Even so, President Barack Obama calls the US $3.8 trillion budget he just sent to Congress a major step in restoring America’s economic health. In fact, it’s another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply addicted to the dangerous drug of debt. Washington’s deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion this year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, which the US already owes $1.5 trillion. The United States has put its fate in the hands of two nations who bear it little good will. Debt service will cost Washington $250 billion, and may reach over a third of the total Federal budget within the next decade. Washington is still paying for past wars while considering starting a new one against Iran. To understand the immensity of one trillion dollars, one would have had to start spending $1 million daily soon after Rome was founded and continue for 2,738 years until today. Obama’s total proposed annual military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret `black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan (including bribes); 225,000 military `contractors’ (mercenaries and workers); and veteran’s costs. Add $75 billion (nearly 2.5 times France’s total defense budget) for 16 poorly functioning intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees who keep tripping over one another. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan `surge’ of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion - more than Germany’s total defense budget. These figures do not account for wear and tear on US military equipment, costs of reconfiguring the US military to wage colonial wars in the Third World, or the cost of replacing worn-out equipment. Pentagon bookkeeping is about as flexible as Enron’s bookkeeping. No wonder US defense stocks rose after Peace Laureate Obama’s `austerity’ budget. Military and intelligence spending relentlessly increase as the official unemployment figure hovers near 10% and the economy bleeds red ink. Some estimates put real unemployment at over 20%. America has become the Sick Man of the Western World, an economic cripple like the defunct Ottoman Empire whose inept financial management was legendary. The Pentagon colossus now accounts for half of total world military spending. Add America’s rich NATO allies and Japan, and the figure reaches 75%. China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of US on defense. There are 750 US military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea. President George W. Bush doubled military spending – much of which accrues to Republican states – to wage his faux war on terror. Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. America is on a permanent war footing. Many Americans believe the president’s primary role is as a war leader rather than chief executive of the republic. Like Bush, President Barack Obama is paying for America’s wars through supplemental authorizations – ie putting them on the nation’s already maxed out credit card. Wage war now – pay later. Future generations will be stuck with the bill. This presidential and congressional jiggery-pokery is the height of public dishonesty. America’s wars ought to be paid for through taxes, not bookkeeping fraud. If US taxpayers had to actually pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, these conflicts would end in short order. America needs a fair, honest war tax. But hardly any politicians – save the courageous and honest Rep. Ron Paul – dare admit this hard truth. The US has clearly reached the point of imperial overreach. Military spending and debt servicing are cannibalizing the US economy, the real basis of its world power. Besides the late USSR, the US also increasingly resembles the dying British Empire in 1945, crushed by immense debts incurred to wage WWII, unable to continue financing or defending the imperium, yet still imbued with imperial pretensions. It is increasingly clear the president is either not in control of America’s runaway military juggernaut, or working with it. Sixty years ago, the great President Dwight Eisenhower, whose portrait I keep by my desk, warned Americans to beware of the military-industrial complex. Six decades later, partisans of permanent war, fear-mongering, and world domination have joined Wall Street’s money lenders to put America into thrall. Increasing numbers of Americans are rightly outraged and fearful of runaway deficits. But many do not understand their political leaders are also spending their nation into ruin through unnecessary foreign wars and a vainglorious attempt to control much of the globe -what neocons call `full spectrum dominance’ – using the canard of terrorism to justify an imperial policy that often closely resembles that of the old British Empire. If Obama were really serious about restoring America’s economic health, he would demand military spending be slashed, quickly end the Iraq and Afghan wars, and break up the nation’s five giant Frankenbanks that now control 40% of all deposits. But the president won’t, of course, and neither will Congress. They would rather see the nation go over the financial falls rather than change course. Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

Right on the money about the harsh reality the American will have to face not far from now.

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by Punisher Well I recently read a report that Osama Bin Laden has not had any audio/video recordings in the last 1.5 yr or something (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if that's the case, then why is there a constant capitalization on fear by the US, as if Osama is going to spring up from anywhere. If he is'nt in the media then either he's dead or he's laughing in the backgrounds. This reminds me of that movie, Andaaz Apna Apna where Gogo says: When a child cries, his mother tells him to go to sleep otherwise Gogo will come.

The US will make sure that Osama is alive in the eyes of the world. Coz Osama is their main excuse to get into any country, pressurize anyone they want.

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by kashif77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

although i asked for ur own point of view , however it seems that u dont have one , so i must start with what u just have copied and pasted ........

the first few defining lines of tis wiki source say ..........

Islamism (Islam+ism; Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎) is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.


What ? U dont agree with that ? Dont u know that Prophet Muhammad SAW described the political structure of Islam as well . Most of the Quran and Ahdadees are based upon the social structure of the society and judicary both self and and social , and ppl who followed them ruled the world ! Rashdiya , Ummiyad , Abbassid , ottoman , mogol , saffavid , the beast empires of their times were joke to u ? If that is so , then Umar the great , Ali , Muawia' , Saladin , Timur , mehmud , Shah abbas , Jahngir etc ( i hope u know these great names ) were islamists too because they followed this " old gaurd " and this enabled them to rule the world and set up examples for the generations to come and u r here comparing them with a person whose physical existence is questionable to world , let alone any particular school of thought that he falls in .

[161]

Originally Posted by poisonjet although i asked for ur own point of view , however it seems that u dont have one ,

I've been accused of many things here .. but not having a view point is something entirely new

Originally Posted by poisonjet the first few defining lines of tis wiki source say .......... Islamism (Islam+ism; Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎) is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically. What ? U dont agree with that ? Dont u know that Prophet Muhammad SAW described the political structure of Islam as well . Most of the Quran and Ahdadees are based upon the social structure of the society and judicary both self and and social , and ppl who followed them ruled the world ! Rashdiya , Ummiyad , Abbassid , ottoman , mogol , saffavid , the beast empires of their times were joke to u ? If that is so , then Umar the great , Ali , Muawia' , Saladin , Timur , mehmud , Shah abbas , Jahngir etc ( i hope u know these great names ) were islamists too because they followed this " old gaurd " and this enabled them to rule the world and set up examples for the generations to come and u r here comparing them with a person whose physical existence is questionable to world , let alone any particular school of thought that he falls in .

What exactly are you trying to argue with me ?

The definition of Islamism ?

Well there's nothing much to argue there .. it's a definition.

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by kashif77 wrong wrong wrong ...

LOL LOL LOL


i expected some intelligence , believe me , i did .

btw , u belong to Punjab province , dont u ?

[161]

Originally Posted by poisonjet LOL LOL LOL i expected some intelligence , believe me , i did . btw , u belong to Punjab province , dont u ?

updated for ur satisfaction.

i am from sialkot.

[Khabri420]

Originally Posted by kashif77 updated for ur satisfaction. i am from sialkot.

[161]

Originally Posted by Khabri420

yes home of great fearless leader and even greater fearlesslesser batsman :iamlegend

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by kashif77 I've been accused of many things here .. but not having a view point is something entirely new What exactly are you trying to argue with me ? The definition of Islamism ? Well there's nothing much to argue there .. it's a definition.

Man ! Islam is something which cant be argued upon it is already so much detailed either by Prophet himself or the list of Tabaieens , Imams , Muftis , scholars etc , that it has not much cavity to fill up with ideas and thier driven arguments .

What i was stressing on , was that , there exists a political Islam defined by Prophet himself and Quran . Obviously its implementation becomes liable necessary on us if we ( shameful for some ppl ) call ourselves muslims . and its no rocket science , I gave u examples of the great Muslim empires of the past who were based upon the political Islam and with social and judicial structure of it . and they ruled the world . Isnt it enuf for us to decide ? what to choose between the tried tested failed political systems or what i said above ?

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by kashif77 updated for ur satisfaction. i am from sialkot.

explains much !

nevermind .

[Zechariah]

Originally Posted by poisonjet LOL LOL LOL i expected some intelligence , believe me , i did . btw , u belong to Punjab province , dont u ?

This is like 10th time I have seen you bring Punjab in a debate?

What does Punjab has anything to do with it?

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by poisonjet explains much ! nevermind .

what in the world are you on about?

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by Zechariah This is like 10th time I have seen you bring Punjab in a debate? What does Punjab has anything to do with it?

it has alot to do with it , i will write on it some other time . and it would neither be reasonless or ill sensed , nor against punjab itself .

[Zechariah]

Originally Posted by poisonjet it has alot to do with it , i will write on it some other time . and it would neither be reasonless or ill sensed , nor against punjab itself .

I know it wont be because you are a very sensible poster. I am a Punjabi too and my views differ from those that you usually debate with and bring it up lol

So ya when you do have time please to explain what you mean..

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by Zechariah I know it wont be because you are a very sensible poster. I am a Punjabi too and my views differ from those that you usually debate with and bring it up lol So ya when you do have time please to explain what you mean..

thanks for compliments , as for the punjab thing u asked me about , I will do that later today or may be tomm ' .

[Cheguvera]

IRAN’S AHMADINEJAD STRIKES AGAIN
"__" February 15, 2010
To fete the 31st anniversary of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gleefully announced his nation will enrich uranium to 20%.
The bombastic Ahmadinejad seems to delight in provoking howls of outrage from the West. They were not long in coming.

Western media and politicians loudly denounced Iran’s latest nuclear effort, claiming it would put Tehran within striking distance of achieving the 85-90% enrichment needed for nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Florida-based US Central Command has been busy reinforcing US military units and Arab allies in the Gulf to counter any potential Iranian retaliation for an American attack.

In fact, the latest Iranian-American brouhaha was pretty much a tempest in a nuclear teapot.

Iran will only enrich 22 lbs of low-grade uranium to 20% level in order to fuel a small research reactor in Tehran to produce medical isotopes for cancer treatment and imaging. Iran insists it has no plans to produce nuclear weapons.

Tehran has offered to swap its low enriched uranium for fuel rods from Europe and Russia. But Iran says the swap must be simultaneous, while the US-led Western powers demand Iran hand over its 22 lbs of uranium first, then get the fuel rods at some later date – if it behaves.

This rather silly fracas comes as Iran slowly develops a nuclear power industry to produce what it maintains will be electricity. Iran’s oil is being depleted. Forty other nations are at similar or more advanced stages of nuclear power generation. This is all quite legal under UN nuclear agency rules.

Both UN nuclear inspectors and US intelligence say there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Documents purporting to show Iran working on nuclear warheads have been debunked as fakes.

But this did not stop US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from insisting Iran was working on nuclear weapons. Apparently, she puts more credence in Israel’s intelligence estimates than those of the United States.

She also blasted Iran for becoming `a military dictatorship,’ seemingly heedless of the fact that Egypt, one of America’s key Arab allies, has been a military dictatorship for decades. Or that Washington is now all smiles and hugs with the ghastly dictatorship in Uzbekistan where opponents of the regime are boiled alive. Such selective morality is a leading cause of anti-Americanism around the globe.

Meanwhile, nuclear-armed Israel and its American partisans warn Iran is rapidly developing nuclear weapons and demand severe sanctions or war. European nations with rightwing governments also support the US position – more out of fear of the economic disruptions a US-Iranian conflict would bring than out of fear of Iran, a major European trading partner.

Why does Iran keep provoking Western anger, defying the Security Council, inviting sanctions, and risking devastating Israeli attack when it could simply buy fuel rods from Europe that cannot be used for nuclear weapons?

Thirty-one years ago Iranians overthrew the hated, US-backed monarchy of Reza Shah Pahlavi. The revolution was led by an exiled Shia cleric, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and an old university friend of mine, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh. This historic uprising was ignited by Iranian’s anger at being misruled by a Western-installed despot who mocked Islam, allowed his rapacious family to loot the nation, and spent billions on US and British arms when his people went hungry and illiterate.

The dreaded US and Israeli-trained secret police, Savak, kept the Shah in power through a reign of terror and torture. Iranians later blamed the US and Britain for engineering and financing Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion of Iran which cost one million Iranian casualties.

In the 1970’s, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld went to Tehran to offer to sell the Shah’s regime 31 nuclear reactors. Israel reportedly offered to swap medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads for oil. But after the revolution, Iran was declared a `terrorist regime’ when Khomeini demanded that Mideast oil money be shared by its people rather than go to 1,400 Saudi princes and other US-supported monarchies, and championed the Palestinian cause.

Nuclear power has become Iran’s key national issue. Ali Khamenei, Iran’s current spiritual guide, claims Britain and the US are determined to deny the Muslim world modern technology in order to keep it backwards, weak, and forced to buy Western arms and exports. Imperial Britain did the same to India, keeping its colony economically backwards for two centuries,

For most Iranians, developing nuclear power means breaking out of their Western-imposed technological ghetto and modernization. It’s a matter of profound national pride and defiance: Iran was repeatedly invaded by Britain and Russia, its governments were overthrown by Western powers, and its oil exploited.

Nuclear technology offers independence, and, potentially, weapons for self-defense, if Tehran so chooses. This writer has long believed that one day Iran will opt to deploy nuclear weapons for self-defense. The Western and Israeli claim that Tehran’s `mad mullahs’ are intent on inflicting worldwide nuclear doomsday is ludicrous and absurd.

To Western dismay, most of the current Iranian protest movement’s leaders back its nuclear program. If Ahmadinejad were replaced, Iran’s nuclear efforts would continue unless the US and Britain managed to achieve their strategy of imposing a new, compliant royalist regime in Tehran.

In the Iranian view, if France and Britain, and neighbors Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India (now with US help) can have nuclear arms, why can’t Iran at least boil water for tea using nuclear energy?

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

[Qelic]

Originally Posted by Cheguvera IRAN’S AHMADINEJAD STRIKES AGAIN "__" February 15, 2010 To fete the 31st anniversary of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gleefully announced his nation will enrich uranium to 20%. The bombastic Ahmadinejad seems to delight in provoking howls of outrage from the West. They were not long in coming. Western media and politicians loudly denounced Iran’s latest nuclear effort, claiming it would put Tehran within striking distance of achieving the 85-90% enrichment needed for nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Florida-based US Central Command has been busy reinforcing US military units and Arab allies in the Gulf to counter any potential Iranian retaliation for an American attack. In fact, the latest Iranian-American brouhaha was pretty much a tempest in a nuclear teapot. Iran will only enrich 22 lbs of low-grade uranium to 20% level in order to fuel a small research reactor in Tehran to produce medical isotopes for cancer treatment and imaging. Iran insists it has no plans to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran has offered to swap its low enriched uranium for fuel rods from Europe and Russia. But Iran says the swap must be simultaneous, while the US-led Western powers demand Iran hand over its 22 lbs of uranium first, then get the fuel rods at some later date – if it behaves. This rather silly fracas comes as Iran slowly develops a nuclear power industry to produce what it maintains will be electricity. Iran’s oil is being depleted. Forty other nations are at similar or more advanced stages of nuclear power generation. This is all quite legal under UN nuclear agency rules. Both UN nuclear inspectors and US intelligence say there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Documents purporting to show Iran working on nuclear warheads have been debunked as fakes. But this did not stop US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from insisting Iran was working on nuclear weapons. Apparently, she puts more credence in Israel’s intelligence estimates than those of the United States. She also blasted Iran for becoming `a military dictatorship,’ seemingly heedless of the fact that Egypt, one of America’s key Arab allies, has been a military dictatorship for decades. Or that Washington is now all smiles and hugs with the ghastly dictatorship in Uzbekistan where opponents of the regime are boiled alive. Such selective morality is a leading cause of anti-Americanism around the globe. Meanwhile, nuclear-armed Israel and its American partisans warn Iran is rapidly developing nuclear weapons and demand severe sanctions or war. European nations with rightwing governments also support the US position – more out of fear of the economic disruptions a US-Iranian conflict would bring than out of fear of Iran, a major European trading partner. Why does Iran keep provoking Western anger, defying the Security Council, inviting sanctions, and risking devastating Israeli attack when it could simply buy fuel rods from Europe that cannot be used for nuclear weapons? Thirty-one years ago Iranians overthrew the hated, US-backed monarchy of Reza Shah Pahlavi. The revolution was led by an exiled Shia cleric, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and an old university friend of mine, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh. This historic uprising was ignited by Iranian’s anger at being misruled by a Western-installed despot who mocked Islam, allowed his rapacious family to loot the nation, and spent billions on US and British arms when his people went hungry and illiterate. The dreaded US and Israeli-trained secret police, Savak, kept the Shah in power through a reign of terror and torture. Iranians later blamed the US and Britain for engineering and financing Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion of Iran which cost one million Iranian casualties. In the 1970’s, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld went to Tehran to offer to sell the Shah’s regime 31 nuclear reactors. Israel reportedly offered to swap medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads for oil. But after the revolution, Iran was declared a `terrorist regime’ when Khomeini demanded that Mideast oil money be shared by its people rather than go to 1,400 Saudi princes and other US-supported monarchies, and championed the Palestinian cause. Nuclear power has become Iran’s key national issue. Ali Khamenei, Iran’s current spiritual guide, claims Britain and the US are determined to deny the Muslim world modern technology in order to keep it backwards, weak, and forced to buy Western arms and exports. Imperial Britain did the same to India, keeping its colony economically backwards for two centuries, For most Iranians, developing nuclear power means breaking out of their Western-imposed technological ghetto and modernization. It’s a matter of profound national pride and defiance: Iran was repeatedly invaded by Britain and Russia, its governments were overthrown by Western powers, and its oil exploited. Nuclear technology offers independence, and, potentially, weapons for self-defense, if Tehran so chooses. This writer has long believed that one day Iran will opt to deploy nuclear weapons for self-defense. The Western and Israeli claim that Tehran’s `mad mullahs’ are intent on inflicting worldwide nuclear doomsday is ludicrous and absurd. To Western dismay, most of the current Iranian protest movement’s leaders back its nuclear program. If Ahmadinejad were replaced, Iran’s nuclear efforts would continue unless the US and Britain managed to achieve their strategy of imposing a new, compliant royalist regime in Tehran. In the Iranian view, if France and Britain, and neighbors Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India (now with US help) can have nuclear arms, why can’t Iran at least boil water for tea using nuclear energy? Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

Cool

[Cheguvera]

RENT-A-RAMBOS
March 22, 2010
A fascinating scandal has erupted in Washington that is exposing the sordid underbelly of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
According to a “New York Times” investigation and other Washington sources, the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies have fielded covert mercenary networks in Afghanistan, Pakistan (aka “Afpak”), and Iraq whose mission is to murder tribal militants and nationalists opposing Western occupation.

US law forbids murder or using mercenaries. But, as Cicero said, “laws are silent in times of war.”

A former senior Pentagon official specializing in murky foreign operations, Mike Furlong, set up a company, International Media Ventures(IMV), to supposedly provide the US military with “cultural information” about Afghanistan’s Pashtun tribes. Codename: Operation Capstone.

Two obscure, Orwellian-named Pentagon outfits, “the Cultural Engineering Group” of Florida, and “Counter-Narcoterrorism Technology Program” of Virginia funded Furlong with $24.6 million.

Furlong hired a bunch of former special forces types and assorted thugs. These rent-a-Rambos’s real mission was to assassinate Pashtun leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and target tribal compounds for strikes by US Predator drones. Another heartwarming example of free enterprise at work and how to win Muslim hearts and minds.

In short, a 2010 version of the Mafia’s contract killers, known as “Murder Inc.”

Thickening this plot, retired CIA types, including the flamboyant Dewey Clarridge, whom I well recall from the 1980’s Afghan war, were reportedly involved. IMV’s CEO came from major defense contractor L-3, long involved in top secret operations.

It is uncertain if Furlong’s Murder Inc had time to go operational. But its exposure is causing a huge ruckus. In best US government tradition, the Pentagon has cut Furlong adrift. He is now under criminal investigation.

Shades of CIA agent Ed Wilson, whose frightful case I long followed. Wilson was set up as a deniable “independent” by CIA to supply arms and explosives to Libya and Angola. When this intrigue blew wide open, Wilson was kidnapped by US agents, convicted on the basis of lies by the government, and buried alive in federal prison.

This latest guns-for-hire scandal recalls the brutal, 1980’s guerilla war in El Salvador, which I covered, where the US became involved with government death squads. It also reminds me of the long-forgotten 1968-1972 Operation Phoenix in South Vietnam in which CIA and South Vietnamese special units killed from 26,000 to 44,000 suspected Communists or sympathizers. US Special Forces were heavily involved in these liquidation operations.

The Furlong scandal comes at a time of growing criticism of the US government’s use of over 275,000 mercenaries (aka “private contractors”) in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These hired gunmen and logistics personnel operate without any accountability, legal structure, or oversight.

Intelligence sources in Pakistan say that US mercenaries are likely behind some of the bombings of civilian targets, particularly those in Peshawar. Indian intelligence agents are also spreading mayhem in an effort to destabilize Pakistan.

Private mercenary firms like Xe (formerly Blackwater) and DynCorp have raked in fortunes running private armies for the US. They are major donors to the far right of the Republican Party. Deeply worried civil libertarians warn these private armies are only a few goose-steps away from resembling the Nazi Brownshirts of late 1920’s Germany.

Amazingly, it seems US Special Forces in Afpak have not until this month been under the control of supreme commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. They apparently reported to his rival, Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus in Tampa. These Rambos have been rampaging around, killing at will and committing atrocities against civilians, reports the UN.

This is ironic since McChrystal rose to his high rank by leading US Joint Special Operations Command’s special forces on campaigns of liquidation and intimidation in Iraq, and later, Afghanistan.

To the Pentagons’s fury, CIA has long run its own killer paramilitary units and drone assassination operations, 90% of whose victims are civilians, according to Pakistani media investigations. Such “wet affairs” undermine the agency’s basic mission of intelligence-gathering.

CIA’s paramilitaries report only to Langley which does not talk to the Pentagon. Pakistan’s feeble rent-a-government is not even informed in advance of Predator strikes and assassinations on its own territory.

How many of the 15 other US intelligence agencies are running their own little illegal private armies? Add special forces from NATO contingents, whose operations remain a deep secret. Australia, for one, has come under heavy criticism for attacks on civilians by its SAS units. Britain’s renowned SAS and SBS commandos are very active in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The US brands all al-Qaida suspects and Taliban “illegal combatants,” denying them due process of law and the Geneva Convention’s prisoner protections. It’s ok to murder and torture such “terrorists,” says Washington.

But what, then, about the army of US mercenary Rambos that are running amok, who wear no uniform, kill at will, and have no legal oversight? Or America’s Special Forces?

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010