Kheir bro. Do I have to go out of my way to holler at you from Nuristan to get your attention? Nur

NURISTAN! Never knew it existed! It is surprising that a whole province shares its name with eNuri! Afghan People on the Hindu-Kush mountain range are indeed enlightened. MaashaaAllah! And it falls for the Taliban! DISCLAIMER: eNuri, Nur, Cag Bakayle or any SOL Islam page moderator has nothing to do directly or indirectly with any illegal violent activity anywhere in the world, including the government sponsored warlords, fictitiously concocted group known as Al Qaeda, its affiliates or it's behind the scenes handlers Taliban Take Over Afghan Province By Syed Saleem Shahzad October 29, 2009 "Asia Times" -- ISLAMABAD - The United States has withdrawn its troops from its four key bases in Nuristan, on the border with Pakistan, leaving the northeastern province as a safe haven for the Taliban-led insurgency to orchestrate its regional battles. The US has retained some forces in Nuristan's capital, Parun, to provide security for the governor and government facilities. The American position concerning the withdrawal is that due to winter conditions, supply arteries are choked, making it difficult to keep forces in remote areas. The US has pulled out from some areas in the past, but never from all four main bases. The move by the top US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChystal, follows the death on October 3 of eight US soldiers as well as a number of Afghan National Army forces when their outpost in Kamdesh was attacked by more than 300 militants. On July 13, 2008, nine American soldiers were killed when their outpost in Wanat was attacked by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Nuristan is strategically located in the Hindu Kush mountains, the vast and rugged region in which al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his associates are believed to hide. The province is now under the effective control of the network belonging to Qari Ziaur Rahman, a Taliban commander with strong ties to Bin Laden. This makes Nuristan the first Afghan province to be controlled by a network inspired by al-Qaeda. In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, a militant linked to Rahman said that now that they had control of Nuristan, the militants are "marching towards Mohmand and Bajaur to help their fellow Taliban fighting against Pakistani troops", referring to two tribal agencies across the border. Rahman is not the son of a legendary mujahideen commander, but of a cleric named Maulana Dilbar. His ties do not lie with Pakistan, but with Bin Laden, having instructed him in the lessons of the Prophet Mohammed's life. Ziaur, in his early thirties, was raised in the camps of Arab militants, who instilled in him the passion to fight against the Americans - not only in Afghanistan, but across the globe. Ziaur did not get his command as any hereditary right. First he had to prove himself on the battlefield, which he did by taking on US troops in Kunar and Nuristan provinces. He was the first to mount operations against the US in the Karghal district of Kunar and he engineered encounters in Nuristan. (See A fighter and a financier Asia Times Online, May 23, 2008.) Mountainous Nuristan - and adjoining Kunar province and the Mohmand and Bajaur tribal areas - provide a natural labyrinth, ideal for insurgents to establish safe heavens. The majority of Nuristan's people adhere to the strict Salafi school of thought. As a result, Arab fighters, who are mostly Salafis, have always been drawn to the area. This happened during the jihad against the Soviets in the 1980s, when a virtually autonomous Salafi "kingdom" was established with aid from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This was later eliminated by the Taliban. In recent years, several top al-Qaeda leaders have been spotted in the area, including al-Qaeda deputy Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, who escaped two missile attacks by US Predator drones. During the Soviet invasion, Nuristan was one of the few areas of the country that was never under occupation. Since the US-led invasion of 2001, it, along with Kunar, has been a hot-bed of activity. The Taliban's control of Nuristan coincides with the big Pakistani military operation in the South Waziristan tribal area against the al-Qaeda-backed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, which has been underway for the past two weeks. As the militant who spoke to Asia Times Online said, there is now the opportunity to open a new front, with Rahman's forces on the Afghan side and those of Moulvi Faqir Mohammad on the Bajaur and Mohmand side. This region is also home to displaced militants from Pakistan's Swat Valley, who withdrew earlier this year after a military offensive in that area. They are believed to have regrouped and are preparing for new action in Swat once the winter snows block passes, making it difficult for the army's supply lines. The latest developments in Nuristan mark a dramatic about-turn. In late 2008, coalition forces, along with the Pakistani military, launched Operation Lion Heart. The idea was that militants would be squeezed between coalition forces in Kunar and Nuristan on the one side, and Pakistani troops in Mohmand and Bajaur on the other. Several months later, both armies announced - clearly prematurely - that they had succeeded in flushing out the insurgent sanctuaries in the region. Lion Heart was planned following US and Pakistani intelligence reports that the Taliban bases in Mohmand and Bajaur and in Nuristan and Kunar fed into a network that went on to the Taghab Valley in Kapisa province, which is just to the north of the capital, Kabul. From here, the Taliban have been able to launch suicide squads for attacks in Kabul. The US withdrawal from Nuristan, if it becomes permanent, will give an unprecedented boost to the Taliban in the whole region. In the immediate term, they are better placed than ever to disrupt next month's presidential election runoff between the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, and his challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. The Taliban have already issued calls for people to boycott the voting. In a foretaste of what is to come, the Taliban on Wednesday attacked a guest house in Kabul, killing at least 12 people, including six United Nations employees, two security officials and a civilian, according to police and UN officials. Kabul police said that three attackers, all wearing suicide vests, had also been killed. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sherban bro. I do follow the news, most of it is garbage, it regurgitates false propaganda that does not reflect what is happening on the ground, its a war by another means and its not a level playing field. Every story has two sides, unfortunately, regarding Somalia, the International Western Media is increasingly losing its independence and impartiality since the nations that own it or its advertisers have close interest with those responsible for the mess in Somalia by using corrupt politicians and Warlords. The Shabaab have their backs against the wall, who do you complain to when the Police Chief is planting false evidence on you, while the presiding Judge of your case is paid up bribe by the prosecution? For your information, I do visit Somalia more frequently than you, and have witnessed with my own eyes the anarchy from very close range, so that is why I know better than your regular Reuters and AFP reports that skew any news to fit the requirements of the sponsors of this asymmetric war. Please, dig up all the news and prove to me with objectivity that the news is correct and unbiased, that is what is missing, not just news, and you will have me a believer on your side. secondly, you are dead wrong to say that AMISOM is using an equivalent force ( Mortars only)like the resistance, Please take a trip to Mogadishu to see it for yourself before you make such a statement, no Shabab Mortar is capable in killing 40 people and wounding 70 people in one shot like those of AMISOM, and they are requesting more devastating weaponry from their pay masters . Finally, we are discussing the issue of the morality of Collective Punishment, which is a moral issue that concerns Islam and any other faith as well, also, in Islam there is no issue that affects a Muslims life that is out of Islam's sphere of interest, be it Economy, Social or Political. Its a Christian way of thinking to separate faith from politics, not Islam. Nur

Sherban Here is what I have written: Similar to what Israel is doing to Palestinians, the AMISOM is doing it to Somalis in Mogadishu, I mean the COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, whenever they are attacked by the resistance groups, they simply target civilian shopping area at the Bakara Market killing hundreds with the same Israeli excuse, "that they are defending themselves against rockets!" As you can see, the comparison was not a complete comparison, it was a partial comparison on a specific tactic used by both of AMISOM and Israel, to subdue their respective resistances against their plans, which is known as Collective Punishment. Thus, it would have been beneficial if your response elaborated more on the Collective punishment of AMISOM, and Israel. You claim that Shabab have killed more Somalis than AMISOM. This argument does not address the issue of COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, nor does it justify the killing of civilians by AMISOM, that I have suggested, but for your information, unless you have already taken a position on who is right and who is wrong in Somalia ongoing proxy wars, a survey of facts will help you stay as a neutral observer ( which suits your balanced writing point of view). Its NOT the Shabab who've killed more Somalis as you claim, but the Criminal Warlords that AMISOM is paid (Approx. US 26 Million/ Monthly ) to protect from its own hungry people, The Criminal Warlords thugs who are currently members of the TFG have killed more Somali civilians than any other group, from the fall of Siad Barre government in 1991 up until their defeat in the hands of the Islamic Courts, the Criminal Warlords have killed, maimed, raped, tortured, contracted assassinations on behalf of freign entities, and committed the most heinous crimes against humanity in Somalia with the full support of their patrons Ethiopia and the USA. Strangely, they have a skin made of Teflon, no crimes stick on them, thanks to the Media, owned and operated by the same people who are behind Somalia's plight. For your information, the mandate that supposedly legitimizes the presence of the AMISOM in Somalia is built on false premises. 1. There is NO SOVEREIGN STATE IN SOMALIA to sign an agreement for foreign troops to be deployed in Somalia with a license to kill Somalis. 2. Any Foreign Peace Keeping Force, should just do that PEACE KEEPING. If there is no PEACE, why are they there? PROTECTION OF THE NON SOVEREIGN TFG GOVERNMENT that invited it? . The term PEACE KEEPING in Somalia is an oxymoron, there is no PEACE in Somalia, and AMISOM is not KEEPING anything but their lucrative salaries, thus a very amusing justification at best. Today, AMISOM have recognized this fallacy and are now trying to change their mandate to PEACE CREATION which is another veiled word for FIGHTING INSURGENCY ON BEHALF OF TFG CRIMINAL WARLORD PUPPET GOVERNMENT WITH PAID FINANCING FROM NATO. 3. AMISOM is not a PEACE SOLUTION PROVIDER, they are SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE, paid in US Dollars by NATO and USA to do the dirty groundwork for their economic and strategic future plans in the Horn of AFRICA. 4. Like the Israeli IDF and the American Backwater Mercenaries, AMISOM shoots first then asks questions later, to them, the whole population are their enemies,( Which is natural reaction whenever you place a foreigner in the middle of a Proxy Civil war), so any civilian they kill in the course of their false mandate, while "defending themselves" are defined as COLLATERAL DAMAGE by the Media , not COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, which is the right definition of their illegal action according to the Geneva Convention. Comparing AMISOM to Shabab is like comparing a hired gun to a freedom fighter, how much of the Somali Civilian killed by the Shabaab were innocent targets? and how many were their opponent warlord combatants,?. In contrast to the Shabab, (who may be guilty of jumping the gun on their opponents, and at times, may have killed innocent people based on a wrong judgement), the AMISOM are widely known among Mogadishu Residents to shoot high powered artillery shells to all directions of Mogadishu, ( The Shabab do not have the equivalent firepower weapons nor artillery nor tanks like those of AMISOM to make same damage) and specially with respect to the civilian shoppers packed Bakara market , whenever attacked by the resistance groups even if the fighters are engaging the AMISOM at close range with a fire fight at the gates of their own barracks. ( How many articles have you read that blame the Shabab in bombarding the Bakara market?) Nur

Satire After all I am a Proper Zionist Jew I am a Holocaust survivor By Gilad Atzmon October 27, 2009 "Information Clearing House" - -- Yes, I am a survivor, for I have managed to survive all the scary accounts of the Holocaust: the one about the soap (1), the one about the lamp shades, the one about the camps, the mass shooting, the one about the gas (2) and the one about the death march (3). I just managed to survive them all. In spite of all these fear inflicting stories, that were purposely installed in my soul since I opened my eyes for the first time, I have become a functional and even a successful human being. I somehow survived the horror against all odds. I even manage to love my neighbour. In spite of all these fearful, traumatic indoctrination I miraculously managed to master my cheering alto saxophone rather than the sobbing violin. In fact, I have already decided that in case the Queen, or any other member of the Royal Family should ever consider to make me into a ‘Sir’ for my bebop achievements, or even for facing Zionist barbarism with my bare pen, I will immediately change my surname from Atzmon to Vive, just to become the first and only Sir Vive. I am also totally against Holocaust denial I clearly resent those who deny the genocides that are taking place in the name of the Holocaust. Palestine is one example, Iraq is another and the one that is set for Iran, is probably too scary to contemplate. The Holocaust is a relatively new religion (4). It lacks mercy or compassion, instead it promises revenge through retribution. For its followers, it is somehow liberating because it allows them to punish whoever they like as long they gain some pleasure. This may explain why the Israelis ended up punishing the Palestinians for crimes that were committed by Europeans. It is rather clear that the newly emerging religion is not just about ‘eye for an eye’; it is actually an eye for thousands and thousands of eyes. A month ago, while visiting in Auschwitz, Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak left a note in the official visitors book: ‘a strong Israel is both the comfort and the revenge’(5). No one could summarise the aspiration of the religion any better. The Holocaust religion doesn’t offer redemption. It is a crude violent manifestation of sheer collective brutality. It cannot resolve anything, for aggression can only lead to more and more aggression. In the Holocaust religion there is neither room for peace or grace. Take it from Barak, revenge is where they find comfort. To deny the danger posed by the Holocaust religion and its followers is to be complicit in a growing crime against humanity and against every possible human value. I am also in total support of the Jewish National Project Some believe that after 2000 years of ‘phantasmic Diaspora’ Jews are indeed entitled to an imaginary ‘national home land of their own’. The Zionists apparently meant it sincerely. The Jewish state is now realistic enough to have turned the entire Middle East into a ticking bomb. Reviewing the Israeli record of crimes against humanity in the last six decades doesn’t leave much room for speculation. We are dealing here with a pathological sinister society. Hence, as much as some of us may agree that Jews should enjoy a hypothetical right for a land of their own, planet Earth is certainly not the ideal location for such an affair. Hence, I would urge NASA to join in and to make a special effort to find a suitable alternative planet for the Zionist homeland in outer space or even in another galaxy. The Galactic Zionist project would signify the immediate move from ‘promised land’ to ‘promised planet’. I would enthusiastically stress that rather than searching for ‘a land with no people for a people with no land’, what we really want is a ‘lonely planet’. It can even be a ‘desert’ for they claim to know how to make the desert bloom. In a planet of their own the galactic Zionists wouldn’t need to oppress anyone, they wouldn’t ethnically cleanse either, they wouldn’t have to lock the indigenous people in concentration camps, for there won’t be any indigenous people around to abuse, starve, murder and cleanse. They wouldn’t have to pour white phosphorous over their neighbours for there won’t be any neighbours. I would highly recommend NASA to search for a planet with very low gravity just to make it light for people to wander around. After all, we want the new galactic Zionists to enjoy their futuristic project as much as the Palestinians and many others may enjoy their absence. So here I am, a proper Jew after all: I am a survivor, I oppose Holocaust denial, I support the Jewish national aspiration. Even the chief Rabbi of Britain cannot ask for more than that. (1) Acknowledged recently to be a ‘myth’ by the Israeli holocaust museum Yad Vashem (2) A historical fact protected by European Law. (3) A slightly confusing narrative. If the Nazis were interested in annihilating the entire European Jewish population as suggested by the orthodox Zionist holocaust narrative, then it is rather ambiguous as to just what led them to march what was left of European Jewry, into their crumbling Nazi fatherland at a time when it was clear that they were losing the war. The two narratives i.e. ‘annihilation’ and ‘death march’, seem to oppose each other. The issue deserves further elaboration. I would just suggest that the reasonable answers I have come across may severely damage the Zionist holocaust narrative. (4) The Israeli Philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz was probably the first to define the holocaust as the ‘new Jewish religion’. (5) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3790707,00.html

J. Peter Pham: Ethiopian warlord’s “Intellectual for Hire” By Sophia Tesfamariam The Ethiopian Review On my flight back from London, UK, I decided to catch up on my reading and began by going through some articles that were compiled for me by a friend. It was amongst the pile that I found the piece on Somalia by J. Peter Pham; it turned out to be yet another lazy analysis… I say lazy because his entire piece was a patching together of “cut and paste” paragraphs collected from various dubious self-serving sources. Pham´s incoherent piece was an elaborate apologia for Meles Zenawi, the only terrorist lurking in the Horn of Africa, who bears full responsibility for the carnage in Somalia. Pham has become one of the most vocal apologists for the minority regime in Ethiopia and his latest “cut and paste” piece is a regurgitation of the regime´s often heard narration (tantrums), as it scrambles to get itself out of yet another self-created quagmire. Those of us who have been observing development in the Horn region know Meles Zenawi´s modus operandi. This latest piece by Pham is a desperate and transparent attempt to divert attention away from the ill-advised, illegal and immoral US-backed Ethiopian invasion and 2-year occupation of Somalia, and international crimes committed by Meles Zenawi´s regime in Somalia. Sanctioning Eritrea (for not toeing Washington´s line on Somalia) is supposed to give Meles Zenawi a respite from his self created quagmire. For Pham and his cohorts, blamingEritrea is somehow supposed to absolve Meles and those responsible for the crimes committed in Somalia. It may take time, but sooner or later, Meles Zenawi and his handlers will pay for the destruction of Somalia and the deaths of thousands of innocent Somalis. It is Meles Zenawi´s hands that are drenched with the blood of Somalis, notEritrea´s. Pham is barking up the wrong tree. My first instinct was to ignore the dishonest individual and his “cut and paste” propaganda piece, which he attempts to pass of for an intellectual analysis on Somalia. But since there may be some lawmakers who might take his statements for fact and believe his misinformation, once in a while, as we have done in the past, it’s important that Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalis, as citizens ofthe Horn , call him out and expose his hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. This ordained Catholic priest (a credential rarely mentioned in his articles) has traded his priestly collar for a “falfalina” (bow tie), and replaced the morals and teachings of the Catholic Church, with lies and deceptions in his new found (much more lucrative) vocation as a hired gun (or is it hired pen). This embedded priest exposes the ugly side of academia and how much US Foreign Policy is damaged by self serving, morally bankrupt operatives such as Pham who have no qualms about deceiving the US public and lawmakers in order to advance their own illicit (often illegal) agendas. Horn residents are not surprised by J. Peter Pham’s latest piece in defense of Meles Zenawi and the minority regime in Ethiopia. One of the “intellectuals for hire” that has provided the minority regime political shield in Washington with “testimonies in Congress”, Pham has deliberately lied to, and misled, lawmakers and the American public with is faulty analysis on Somalia, Somaliland, the UIC and more. Pham´s thinking is not just beyond the pale, it´s willfully dangerous and evil. This self appointed “expert” on Africa believes his brief stint as a “Vatican envoy to East Africa” gives him the credentials to write at will, without providing a single shred of evidence to support his far fetched assertions. “Cut and paste” paragraphs fit together to fit Meles Zenawi´s narratives will not cut it. Distorting the facts, omitting the truth and fabricating lies is not a Christian thing to do…as a former priest, he ought to know better. It is no secret that Pham is closely associated with the conservative neocolonialist cartel; a dubious alliance of fundamentally different and even ideologically opposed religious and political factions such as the coalition of evangelical Christians (also known as the New Christian Right) and the aggressive political ideologues commonly known as the Neoconservatives who have launched an unprecedented evil campaign againstEritrea for the last 10 years in order to advance their hegemonic agendas in the region. Pham is also closely associated with Joseph Greibosky, the author of several erroneous reports onEritrea and Iran and whose organization, the Institute for Religion and Public Policy, enjoyed a lucrative arrangement-to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars –with the Bush Administration´s State Department. As a consultant for U.S. intelligence agencies who has helped place former students in intelligence positions, Pham knows a thing or two about that industry and its connections in Somalia. Pham, more than anybody else, knows thatEritrea has no interest in destabilizing Somalia. Despite what Jendayi E. Frazer and her cohorts purport, neither she, nor her hired guns have been able to provide any evidence to back up their evil allegations againstEritrea . It has been almost three years since Frazer and her accomplices fabricated the outlandish UN reports on Somalia, and to this day, neither Frazer nor her accomplices(Ethiopia, Kenya and the illegitimate TNGs), or any other independent party has been able to substantiate its contents-none. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN Envoy for Somalia for Somalia, has admitted as much. Pham, who in a recent Washington Post article had the audacity to preach to President Barack Obama about the law, continues to justify Meles Zenawi’s lawlessness and belligerence in Somalia and numerous violations of international law and over two dozen UN Security Council resolutions. Exposing his bias and pro-Ethiopia stance, distorting the facts and deliberately omitting from his latest piece, the Final and Binding decision of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) which was delivered on 13 April 2002, which unequivocally awarded Badme, the casus belli for the 1998-2000 border conflict toEritrea, Pham attempts to divert the issue by mentioning the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC), a body that chose to address an issue in 2005 that was outside of its Algiers Agreement mandate. Had Pham done his homework, instead of parroting Meles Zenawi’s tantrums, he would have known that the Algiers Agreement, in addition to the EEBC and EECC, also called for the establishment of a Commission by the African Union and the Secretary General of the United Nations, whose mandate was to investigate the origins of the conflict. The African Union, now an appendage of Menelik Palace has yet to fulfill its obligations under the Algiers Agreements-ditto for the UN.Ethiopia continues to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories, including Badme, in violation of international law. Eritrea´s principled position on Somalia has been consistent from day one. As far back as 1993, Eritrea has been consistently calling for non-interference in the internal affairs of Somalia and has repeatedly called on the international community to respect Somalia´s sovereignty and territorial integrity.Eritrea does not recognize the Transitional National Government of Somalia, not because of the individuals involved, but because it is an illegitimate regime that has been imposed on the Somali people against their wishes. The previous externally imposed TNGs that have been “propped up” in Mogadishu have been repeatedly rejected by the Somali people, who want to choose their own leaders.Eritrea ’s non-recognition of the externally established TNG is not what is destabilizing Somalia; rather it is the Ethiopian invasion and occupation of Somalia and the installing of illegitimate TNGs in Somalia that will be amenable to the West and its allies that has threatened the peace, security and stability in the region. Like Meles Zenawi, Pham is a flip flopping street smart “intellectual for hire” and knows how to sell his services. The man has no principles. He says one thing today and something different tomorrow, as long as it suits his handlers. There was a time when Pham opposed externally imposed TNGs in Somalia. Here is an excerpt from a piece he wrote before his conversion. On 25 May 2007, in a piece he wrote for the National Review, he said: “…If anything, the very existence of the TFG – or any central government which in the Somali context is always viewed as an imposition from the outside – is a provocation that invites resistance and gives destabilizing forces an easy entry…” In another article (”Do Not Resuscitate,” The National Interest Mar.-Apr. 2008) Pham went further to explain why an externally imposed TNG in Somalia would not work. He wrote: “…It should be clear that the way forward in imported states is not to mindlessly repeat mantras about dialogue aimed at shoring up “transitional governments” that are congenitally incapable of governing. Rather, what is needed is the clarity of vision and the political courage to squarely face the facts on the ground. The interests of the international community, as well as those of great powers (like the United States) most likely to become involved in the conflicted regions like the Horn of Africa, require security and stability. That will not be achieved by propping up inherently illegitimate and destabilizing regimes constructed at some international conference center…” In a June 2009 article he mocked the TNG led by Sheikh Sharif Ahmed: “…Even as it was struggling to maintain control of what little bits of its capital it still holds, the TFG continues the charade of being a sovereign government…” This embedded priest ought to know about charades. On 02 Jul 09 Pham wrote the following in World Defense Review: “…What this approach ignores, however, is that if the failure so far of no fewer than fourteen internationally-sponsored attempts at establishing a national government indicates anything, it is the futility—indeed, hubris—of the notion that outsiders can impose a regime on Somalia, even if it is staffed with presumably moderate Somalis duly vetted and anointed by the international community. Instead, in the context of the decentralized reality among the Somali, the concerned international community in general and the United States in particular need to invest the time and resources to seek out local partners who are actually capable of partnering to create a modicum of stability—societal, economic, and, ultimately, governmental—rather than throwing money and arms at a “Transitional Federal Government” which, as a former U.S. ambassador who dealt with Somali issues told me last week, “is neither transitional, nor federal, nor a government.”…” Is Pham going to accuse this anonymous “former US ambassador”, as he did Eritrea, of being a spoiler, of destabilizing the Horn region? I doubt that. Pham’s latest hypocritical piece is a perfect example of the dangers inherent in using “intellectuals for hire”. In pursuit of myopic political agendas such greedy, fame seeking individuals like Pham who have no qualms manipulating and distorting the fact lack scholarly integrity and credibility. Seldom held to account for the ramifications of their writings which are always shaped to advance a particular agenda-in this case, absolution of Meles Zenawi’s regime for its numerous international crimes, these “intellectuals for hire” have damaged US credibility and integrity in the world. US Policy for Africa is incoherent and racist because of self serving “advisors” and “analysts” like Pham. This Islam phobic, incoherent US policy for Somalia is precisely what is threatening to destabilize the entire region. Pham and the other “intellectuals for hire” should be held accountable for the fire they helped fuel in Somalia with their faulty “analysis” and incessant lobbying on behalf of the regime in Ethiopia. With Meles Zenawi, Jendayi E. Frazer instigated and planned the invasion and occupation of Somalia. The pulverization of Somali villages and farms, the deaths of over 12000 innocent civilians, the displacement of over 2 million Somalis, the extra judicial massacres of individuals labeled by Pham and others as being “fundamentalists” and “extremists”, the indiscriminate bombings of Somali markets etc. etc. that followed is the cause behind the greatest humanitarian disaster in the history of Somalia. The Obama Administration can do itself a favor by investigating Pham´s role in this sordid and destructive affair and ask him why he is hell bent on fueling the carnage in Somalia and campaigning for the dismemberment of Somalia. Whose interests/agenda is he promoting? Certainly, his agenda is not in the best interest of the United States or Somalia… The rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle.

Questions. Q. Who pays for the US to patrol the Indian ocean to protect the Fishing Ships on Somali Sea Lanes? A. The bottomless expense account of "War On Terror" which is helping Americans join the Developing Nations soon, just like us in Africa, corrupt, and poor! Q.Who Created the Pirates? and precisely when were they created? A. Initially, it was a protest by poor Somali fisherman in Puntland state, against giant Spanish, Japanese, Korean fishing trawlers vacuuming the entire Somali Coast. Later, they began policing the Somali coasts and seizing ships violating territorial integrity of Somalia and then, it turned out to be a lucrative business with the assistance of "American Advisers" who found in the Pirates a great scapegoat opportunity for creating an international uproar to validate their undeclared strategic objectives in the Horn of Africa. The full fledged outcry of the Pirates began right after the defeat of the American Backed Somali Criminal warlords. I leave for the reader to connect the dots. Since the Pirates are based on Puntland, with the full protection of the local government of Puntland, a region that is under the control of the TFG, and hence a US Client, Why would the US need such an expensive gear to fight Pirates? and why was the Predator planes shot down over kismayo doing there , a 2500 Kilometer away? Lucie has some explanations to do. Nur

As predicted by eNuri a year ago, (Last post on this thread, last paragraph), the US is using predator planes to fight the Somali Resistance forces in the southern coastal towns to help the ailing TFG Warlord government of Somalia, which it helped create with the assistance of Client organization of African Union (A Corrupt Organization) and Ethiopia ( Somalia's Historical Enemy) to help establish, a Warlord government to serve what is perceived as the "American Interests in the region". By "Coincidence", (Recently, one Predator plane was shot down over Somali town, Kismayo skies, which exposed the secret American war against Somali resistance fighters, while the whole world is fixated on American adventures in Afghanistan. After the loss of that Predator plane, Lucie had some explanations to do, why such an expensive plane carrying long range missiles was lost over Somalia?, so, like the Iraq Nuclear WMD Lie, the Us had to justify the Somalia affair, so in order to keep its Pinocchio nose longer and longer, the justification comes as I have predicted, the US is floating a new version of news carried by the Murdoch News Network (Who owns 60% of world Media, Enjoy Democracy!), that The US Navy Predator Planes are protecting the Fishing Vessels and Mega Trawlers on the Indian Ocean stealing Somali fisheries from "Somali Pirates" on the high seas. A Spectacular Internationally Sanctioned Organized Crime in Progress before our eyes! Read the news: Drones protect ships in Somalia Sunday, October 25, 2009. NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — For the first time, sophisticated U.S. military surveillance drones capable of carrying missiles have begun patrolling waters off Somalia in hopes of stemming rising piracy. Three ships have been seized in a week off Africa’s lawless eastern coast and Vice Adm. Robert Moeller, the deputy commander for the U.S. Africa Command, said pirates continue to pose a significant challenge. With the monsoon season now ended, there have been a rash of attacks as pirates return to the open seas. More than 130 crew members from seven ships are currently being held, including about 70 from the latest attacks. In an effort to stem the surge, unmanned U.S. military surveillance planes called MQ-9 Reapers stationed on the island nation of Seychelles are being deployed to patrol the Indian Ocean in search of pirates, Moeller told The Associated Press in an interview at command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The patrols began this week, military officials said. The 36-foot-long Reapers are the size of a jet fighter, can fly about 16 hours and are capable of carrying a dozen guided bombs and missiles. They are outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting. (Just to fight Pirates! What a joke? eNuri Comment) Military officials said Friday the drones would not immediately be fitted with weaponry, but they did not rule out doing so in the future.

Quote: " She is frustrated that a highly personal decision (whether women’s “bodies are a source of shame or symbol joy”) has been taken out of their hands — by Islamic men, of course. The veil, Lazreg finally ventures, “is the last refuge of men’s (sexual) identity.” In Japan, Prostitutes are called COMFORT GIRLS! Whose Comfort? Whose pain? When a woman exposes her body, it's her body, her business! When a woman covers up her body, it's an alarming trend, the government of France needs to interfere and protect the public from the dangers of the veil! ( Paris is World Fashion Capital, billions in revenues are at stake!) Do Muslim woman who observe the Hijab view it as a symbol of Shame? Do Muslim woman who take off the Hijab view it as a symbol of freedom to display her body for pleasure ( The male's Pleasure of course)? We all know that men, with no religious restriction can be driven by their hormones to enjoy looking at women, the more body contours in display, the more exciting, specially when intoxicated with alcoholic beverages, followed by inviting gestures for an expedient encounter, the epitome of freedom in the western sense. So, Where does Marnia get the idea that Muslim men are forcing women to wear the veil, when the opposite is true, that non Muslim men are worried that if all women cover up, the western lifestyle of enjoying the site of semi-nude women on high heels will disappear, so it needs a government intervention to stop young women wearing the Hijab, beginning with the schools and Government Offices. The western culture is on decline, it has lost its moral high ground, and its sad that its taking its last breaths by employing westernized Muslim women to evangelize modest women to expose their bodies so the western man can enjoy his accustomed lifestyle of using women as sex objects as seen on billboards, car showrooms, TV ads, Cinema and the High Fashion. The western women needs to be liberated, the hijab is a liberating symbol for women. Men need not see their bodies, just hear out their intelligent thoughts, which is what counts. Not the billions of revenues from make-ups and woman's apparel by fashion houses in Paris who live on the misery of the poor western women. Nur -------- Lyrics They say, "Oh, poor girl, you're so beautiful you know It's a shame that you cover up your beauty so." She just smiles and graciously responds reassuringly, "This beauty that I have is just one simple part of me. This body that I have, no stranger has the right to see. These long clothes, this shawl I wear, ensure my modesty. Faith is more essential than fashion, wouldn't you agree? This hijab, This mark of piety, Is an act of faith, a symbol, For all the world to see. A simple cloth, to protect her dignity. So lift the veil from your heart to see the heart of purity. They tell her, "Girl, don't you know this is the West and you are free? You don't need to be opressed, ashamed of your femininity." She just shakes her head and she speaks so assuredly, "See the bill-boards and the magazines that line the check-out isles, with their phony painted faces and their air-brushed smiles? Well their sheer clothes and low cut gowns are really not for me. You call it freedom, I call it anarchy." This hijab, This mark of piety, Is an act of faith, a symbol, For all the world to see. A simple cloth, to protect her dignity. So lift the veil from your heart to see the heart of purity. Lift the veil from your heart and seek the heart of purity. ------ High Fashion Businesses threatened by the Hijab The fashion houses listed on the definitive schedule for Haute-Couture Fall/Winter 2009/2010 are: Official members Adeline André Anne Valérie Hash Chanel Christian Dior Christian Lacroix Dominique Sirop Franck Sorbier Givenchy Jean Paul Gaultier Maurizio Galante Stéphane Rolland Correspondent members (foreign) Elie Saab Giorgio Armani Maison Martin Margiela Valentino Guest members Adam Jones Alexandre Matthieu Alexis Mabille Atelier Gustavo Lins Boudicca Cathy Pill Christophe Josse Felipe Oliveira Baptista Jean-Paul Knott Josep Font Lefranc.Ferrant Maison Rabih Kayrouz Marc Le Bihan Richard René Udo Edling Ruhul Rony Accessories Loulou De La Falaise Maison Michel Massaro On Aura Tout Vu

Hodman sis You Suggest: "Nur maybe you should elaborate on the specifics of the steps needed to counter the doubts" The problem of doubt is prevalent among young adults in their spiritual formative years, I can relate to it because I went through the same confusion the sister is talking about. Many Muslims of all ages experience these bouts of "WASAAWIS" as its known in the Arabic language, whose origins are either a wild thought from the blue, or reading an article on the web by an agnostic, or an argument at school or work. Different people handle these WASAAWIS differently, some resolve it by systematically seeking answers for the questions that triggered the particular WASWAAS, and if they are objective, they usually find a satisfying answer, others, who have a similar background like the Sister OZ girl ( being raised by parents who do not practice Islam, yet claim to believe in Islam), are hit the worst with the scourge of religious doubt on fundamentals of faith. The person who suffers these bouts of WASAAWIS also needs to persist in seeking answers for questions that trigger the confusion, and usually the questions fall in one of the following categories: 1. Questions about the existence of Allah 2. Questions about the attributes of Allah ( How Allah administers Justice, and Allah's Mercy, etc) 3. Questions about the Integrity of the Prophet SAWS. 4. Questions about validity of the Sharia. 5. Questions about Democracy. If diseases can weaken our physical well-being and when left untreated, can lead to death, likewise, unanswered questions in our minds can weaken our spiritual fiber leading to Kufr if not treated with convincing answers. The narrower the question and its implications, the easier in finding a suitable answer in Islam, however, when the question is an open ended question like those submitted here by sister Oz Girl, we find it more challenging in finding a suitable answer the will satisfy her , because the questions are fuzzy, anyone trying to answer her questions can be challenged to the foundations. Another factor that I find as a problem for Oz Girl is her limited education in Islam as she was not brought up to practice Islam nor was her questions as a child answered in a convincing way due to the environment in which she grew up. But I agree with you Hodman sis that I should address the WASAAWIS problem in depth in one of the upcoming eNuri threads inshallah. Your Duaa is appreciated for an "Ilhaam minalllah", innahu samiicun basiir. Nur

Nomads This the ENERGISER Hadeeth: You will need it whenever you think of dropping the ball Muaawiyah RAA, reported that the Messsenger of Allah SAWS said: " Among my followers, there will always be a group who will stand for Allah's cause, never feeling let down by ( believers) who disagree with them (who do not follow Allah;s commandments), (nor enemies), up until the end of time while they are triumphant over people. Reported by Ahmed and the two Sheikkhs. Translated by eNuri Transemantics Service. Nur

What, Exactly, is Being Fought in Afghanistan? Fighting the Taliban By M. Reza Pirbhai October 14, 2009 "Counterpunch" -- With US and NATO commanders on the battlefield of Afghanistan calling for more troops, how best to defeat the Taliban is being hotly debated by Washington’s policy-makers and their media pundits. Yet, nowhere are the types of questions posed by Arundhati Roy (the acclaimed Indian novelist and social activist) on a recent visit to Pakistan to be heard in the mainstream US discourse. Clarifying the purpose of her trip during an address at the Karachi Press Club, she stated, “I’m here to understand what you mean when you say Taliban…Do you mean a militant? Do you mean an ideology? Exactly what is it that is being fought?” The reason that such questions are not frequently addressed in the US mainstream seems patently clear. The answers require one to move beyond the atrocities of ‘9/11’ and such pat ideas as the ‘threat’ posed the ‘civilized world’ by the Taliban/al-Qaida ‘militant’ and their ‘ideology,’ as well as the ‘human rights’ and ‘anti-woman’ abuses they perpetrate in their ‘Muslim’ homelands. In fact, Roy’s questions require the respondent to first and foremost recall that precursors to the Taliban - groups and leaders with similar ideologies and methods, including Usama bin Laden – were wholehearted supported by the US, with Saudi Arabian and Pakistani assistance, during the 1980’s, when fighting the USSR and its Afghani ally, the Najibullah regime. Of course, acknowledging that the Taliban-style ‘militant’ was an ally and his ‘ideology’ was considered an asset, not to be fought but nurtured and supported, is no great revelation. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged exactly this in an appearance before the House Appropriations Committee in late April, 2009. She stated: “Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen. And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So there is a very strong argument which is… it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s be careful with what we sow… because we will harvest.” What Clinton neglected to mention, however, and Congress avoided asking, is the full extent and duration of that support, as well as the actual date and circumstances under which the ally was reassessed as an enemy, leaving the impression that the US withdrew after the USSR was defeated in 1989, only to return after the atrocious ‘harvest’ of ‘9/11.’ Regarding the extent of support, Washington insiders do not mention that the Taliban’s “harsh form of oppression on women and others,” which everyone from Madeleine Albright to Hillary Clinton have argued provides cause for war, is not a concern when relations with ‘Wahhabi’ Saudi Arabia are pursued, and was not a concern when the US’ closest ally in the region, President (General) Zia ul-Haq of Pakistan, promulgated a version of ‘Islamic Law’ whose intellectual roots were identical to those of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, as evinced by such ‘anti-woman’ legislation as the removal of all images of women from public spaces (including TV), and such ‘human rights’ violations as public flogging. Zia ul-Haq’s regime entirely changed the complexion of Pakistani society, bringing the religio-political parties that would later instruct the Taliban on ‘Islam’ – that is, the Jama’at-i Ulama-i Islam - firmly into the political arena and leading to an entire generation raised under the impression that at least the social aspects of Taliban-style ‘ideology’ represents the ‘true’ face of ‘Islamic Law,’ whether they stand for or against it. As for the duration of US support for the ‘militant’ and his ‘ideology,’ not even the USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 stemmed activity. In fact, just as the USSR’s withdrawal did not mean an end to its support for the ‘communist’ regime it had left behind, the US found reason to continue supporting the Taliban-style forces arrayed against the Najibullah regime. This was accomplished by continuing to work through Pakistan with Saudi Arabian aid in the support of a coalition of seven Taliban-style outfits, known as the ‘Afghan Interim Government.’ This proxy war did not end until 1992, after the US and the USSR concluded a deal to stop providing military and financial aid to the Afghan Interim Government and the Najibullah regime, respectively. The collapse of the USSR itself only sealed the deal and, consequently, the fate of Najibullah regime; the latter fell by early 1992 and the Afghan Interim Government, held together by the common enemy of Najibullah, soon followed. The fall of Najibullah, however, did not end US entanglement with the Taliban-style ‘militant’ and his ‘ideology’ in Afghanistan, despite Hillary Clinton’s so often repeated claims. Rather, the inauguration of President Bill Clinton in 1992, signalled an emphasis on ties with the ‘Northern Alliance’ – itself a band of Taliban-style groups, sprinkled with regional ‘warlords,’ known for their drug running and human rights abuses. This relationship was actually initiated by Clinton’s predecessor, George Bush (Sr.), in 1989, with the appointment of a US charge d’affair for the Northern Alliance, at the very moment that the charge d’affair for Afghanistan as a whole was withdrawn and the US embassy in Kabul closed. In other words, the US now joined Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia in backing one of the other of the Taliban-style militants and warlords vying for control of Afghanistan, the result of which was the destruction of major cities like Kabul and most of the country’s infrastructure, as well as the continued killing, rape and torture of thousands more civilians. Meanwhile, the official attitude of the US and its NATO allies, who today wage war in the name of ‘human rights’ and ‘women’s emancipation,’ was aptly captured in the following line from a London Times article published in the moment: “The world has no business in that country’s tribal disputes and blood feuds.” As the carnage continued in Afghanistan, across the border in Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq, the US’ prime conduit for the aid and training provided all the Taliban-style militants during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, had been killed in a mysterious plane crash in 1988, clearing the way for the ‘democratic’ administrations of Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto (1988-90) and Nawaz Sharif (1990-93). Even while continuing to funnel funds and aid to Afghani militants from 1989-1992, these administrations were left to deal with the fallout of the last decade’s hottest front in the Cold War on their own. This not only included the ‘militant’ and his ‘ideology’ bequeathed by the US, Saudi Arabia and Zia ul-Haq, but extended to millions of Afghani refugees, the proliferation of weaponry outside of state control and the infusion of a drug culture driven by the Afghani combatants’ and their backers’ preferred method of funding their exploits. Further hampering the ability of these ‘democratic’ administrations to function, beginning as early as 1990, the Bush (Sr.) administration imposed economic and military sanctions on Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment - a country-specific law that singles out Pakistan on the nuclear issue - a consequence of which was the withholding of Pakistan military equipment contracted and paid for prior to 1990, worth about $1.2 billion, as well as the suspension of military officer training in the US. This was followed in 1992/93, under the Clinton administration, with threats to declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism and, in the summer of 1993, the imposition of additional sanctions under the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime). Continuous meddling in Afghanistan, despite the USSR’s withdrawal, coupled with the shift in attitude toward Pakistan, should make it apparent that the ‘New World Order’ sought by Bush (Sr.) played an important part in directing the Clinton administration’s policies as well. In particular, the changing relationship between the US and India envisioned in the ‘New World Order,’ is pivotal to understanding the sides taken in Afghanistan and the hostility toward Pakistan described above. During the Cold War, India had leaned toward the USSR, as evinced by military, economic and cultural pacts, despite professions of ‘non-alignment.’ In fact, until the fall of the Afghani Najibullah regime in 1992, India had been one of its major supporters - Najibullah’s family, for example, finding refuge nowhere but in New Delhi. Even before the end of the Cold War, however, the Indian body-politic had begun swinging rightward, thus making room for a new strategic and economic partnership between it and the US; a reflection of which is India’s support, alongside the US, for the Northern Alliance in the Afghani civil war. As this new US-India relationship unfolded, however, Pakistan’s backing of alternative Afghani militants, support for Kashmiri separatists in conflict with India, as well as its nuclear program and array of conventional weaponry (either acquired under US watch or directly procured from the US and other NATO members) stood in the way. A significant ‘down-grade’ in US-Pakistan relations, therefore, was obviously perceived to be required if an ‘up-grade’ in US-India relations was to follow. Thus, as Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the longest serving Pakistani Ambassador to the US (1994-97; 1999-2002), has written: “The irony about U.S. non-proliferation policy in South Asia was that while the impetus for proliferation at every step came from India, it was Pakistan, and not India, that was subjected to penalties, embargoes and sanctions. Perversely, Pakistan became the victim of penalties for what India had done in 1974 with its explosion of a nuclear device. US non-proliferation laws such as the 1976 Symington Amendment which was later modified by the 1977 Glenn Amendment, called for halting economic or military assistance to any country which delivered or acquired after 1976 nuclear enrichment materials or technology, unless it accepted full-scope safeguards. This meant that India which had already acquired a reprocessing capability was excluded from the ambit of American non-proliferation laws. The Pressler Amendment enacted in 1985, specifically prohibited U.S. assistance or military sales to Pakistan unless annual Presidential certification was issued that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. This certification was denied in October 1990, triggering wide-ranging sanctions against Pakistan.” All that needs to be added to Lodhi’s assessment to complete the picture is the fact that the growing depiction of Pakistan as a ‘state sponsor of terror’ was not merely a consequence of Pakistani policy in Afghanistan (discussed below), but also support for militants of a similar bent in Indian-administered Kashmir. Meanwhile, the ‘state terror’ unleashed in Indian-administered Kashmir, like India’s nuclear weapons capabilities and its support for the Northern Alliance ‘militant’ and ‘ideology’ in Afghanistan, did not lead to vociferous protestations from the US, let alone modifications in US policy toward India. While the US played ball with the Northern Alliance, sanctioned Pakistan and fostered bonds with India by turning a blind eye to its nuclear program and activities in Kashmir or Afghanistan, the Taliban movement had begun to coalesce in the refugee camps of Pakistan –their stated goal to rid Afghanistan of its criminal rulers and enforce their own version of ‘Islamic Law.’ Whether or not the Pakistani military establishment had a hand in creating the Taliban may be debated, but it is quite certain that the former played an important part in promoting the latter as part of their own policy of ‘strategic depth’ in the perennial conflict with India. As previously stated, the Taliban’s scriptural training was provided by the very religio-political party that recruited and indoctrinated many of the militants who fought against the USSR in Afghanistan, had begun fighting in Indian-administered Kashmir by 1990, and had benefitted most in Pakistan’s body politic from Zia ul-Haq’s ‘Islamization’ policy; that is, the Jama’at-i Ulama-i Islam. At any rate, by 1994, the Taliban had taken Kandahar, and was pushing north to Kabul to unseat the Northern Alliance President Burhanuddin Rabbani (himself head of the ‘Jama’at-i Islam,’ a political, though not necessarily an ideological, rival of Jama’at-i Ulama-i Islam, both movements being rooted in the Indian ‘Deobandi’ school of Sunni thought). The irony of the entire scenario, however, was that the horse backed in Afghanistan and the censure of Pakistan by the US, soon proved to have been premature given one of the central concerns of the ‘New World Order’ under construction. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 had ushered the independence of the oil-rich Central Asian republics to the north of Afghanistan. The ‘Center for Research on Globalization’ – a Montreal-based, independent organization of scholars, journalists, writers and activists concerned with globalization – is one among many groups to have published extensively on the scramble to harness Central Asian oil reserves. In sum, authors affiliated with such groups reveal that one of the first companies to gain access to the oil fields of Turkmenistan, was the Argentine corporation, Bridas. Soon after, Bridas proposed a pipeline through neighbouring Afghanistan, for which it also negotiated a 30-year agreement with Kabul’s Rabbani regime to build and operate a pipeline, to which was added an accord with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan (then in her second stint in office) by 1995. Bridas, however, was not the only oil company to be operating in the region. By 1992, Unocal, Amoco, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Pennzoil, Texaco, Enron, Phillips and British Petroleum represented 50% of all investments in the region. Although Bridas offered to negotiate a consortium with some of the latter, the offer was spurned to go directly to regional players with their own plan of action. As one ‘Center for Research on Globalization’ article explains, drawing a great deal from the renowned journalist Rashid Ahmad’s research: “Much to Bridas’ dismay, Unocal went directly to regional leaders with its own proposal. Unocal formed its own competing US-led, Washington-sponsored consortium [CentGas] that included Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil, aligned with Saudi Prince Abdullah and King Fahd. Other partners included Russia’s Gazprom and Turkmenistan’s state-owned Turkmenrozgas... John Imle, president of Unocal (and member of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce with Armitage, Cheney, Brzezinski and other ubiquitous figures), lobbied Turkmenistan's President Niyazov and Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan, offering a Unocal pipeline following the same route as Bridas... Dazzled by the prospect of an alliance with the US, Niyazov asked Bridas to renegotiate its past contract and blocked Bridas’ exports from... [certain oil fields in Turkmenistan]....” Similarly, Unocal’s consortium, CentGas, was able to win over the Pakistani government with a contract to end its pipeline on Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast. The mention of Richard Armitage (a Pentagon official under Ronald Reagan and the Bush (Jr.) administration’s Deputy Secretary of State, also associated with Unocal and ConocoPhillips), Dick Cheney (most recently Vice President in the Bush (Jr.) administration, also associated with Halliburton), and Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, member of various committees under Reagan, co-chairman of the National Security Advisory Taskforce under Bush (Sr.), and also a consultant for Amoco), only refers to those members of the US government (Democrat and Republican) who have had affiliations with oil companies and the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. If the criterion were expanded to US government officials with ties to oil companies active in Central Asia more generally, the list would be too long to reproduce in this context. Thus, it should come as no surprise that once CentGas secured rights to both ends of the proposed pipeline, ‘friendship’ with Pakistan was immediately added to the Clinton administration’s agenda. The first and foremost difficulty for the Clinton administration and Centgas was the fact that Bridas still had the contract with Rabbani’s regime in Afghanistan. The problem would be addressed through the Pakistani-backed Taliban. 1995 was the year in which the Taliban began to be courted by Unocal-led CentGas and Bridas, while the US Congress and Clinton administration softened their stance toward Pakistan in return for promoting the Taliban’s advance in Afghanistan and sidestepping its deal with Bridas. Concerning the latter action, by January 1995, Defence Secretary William Perry had visited Pakistan to mend relations by reviving the ‘Pakistan-US Defence Consultative Group,’ which had not met since 1990. Upon his return to Washington, Perry also declared that the Pressler Amendment was not achieving its objectives, and the Clinton administration followed up the gesture with an April meeting between Clinton and Bhutto. This led Clinton, with bipartisan support from Congress, to promise to revisit the Pressler Amendment, particularly with regard to military sanctions, arguing that a broad, regional approach to nuclear non-proliferation was required. In Lodhi’s words, then serving as the Pakistani Ambassador in Washington: “In May 1995, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted by a near unanimous, bipartisan vote, an amendment moved by Republican Senator Hank Brown to ease Pressler sanctions. This sought to remove from the purview of Pressler all non-military assistance. In the House of Representatives, a similar effort was spearheaded by the newly elected Republican Chairman of the House International Relations Sub-Committee on South Asia, Doug Bereuter, who proposed an amendment to remove Pressler restrictions on all forms of non-military assistance…These actions proved to be vital building blocks in the laborious process of American law making leading to the adoption, later in the year, of the Brown Amendment. The amendment, sponsored by a Republican Senator and promoted by a Democratic Administration, reflected a bipartisan consensus in Washington to repair the bilateral relationship by taking the first significant step towards ending the iniquitous treatment meted out to Pakistan under the discriminatory Pressler Amendment…This modification of the Pressler law removed from its ambit all non-military assistance, as well as provision of IMET (International Military Education Training), while providing, in a one-time waiver of the Pressler Amendment, the release of embargoed military equipment worth about $368 million. Not released under this law were the 28 F-16s for which President Clinton made a good-faith pledge to reimburse Pakistan the money it had paid for the fighter aircraft [during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Washington visit in 1998].” Across the border in Afghanistan, following US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael’s visit to Kandahar in autumn 1996, the Taliban received a green light to enter Kabul, displacing the Rabbani government and depriving Bridas of its local partner in the oil pipeline it had proposed. Unocal went on to offer ‘humanitarian aid’ to Afghan power-brokers, should they agree to form a council to supervise the pipeline project. A new mobile phone network between Kabul and Kandahar was funded, and promises to help rebuild Kandahar were proffered. As well, the US State Department authorized USAID to provide significant funds for education in Taliban territory. All these efforts culminated in two trips to Dallas and Washington by Taliban officials in 1997. The softening of the Clinton administration’s stance, however, had the unforeseen effect of prompting other US oil companies to challenge Unocal. The same year that Unocal and government officials were wining and dining Taliban representatives in the US, Bridas found a partner in Amoco, with the help of such mainstays of US finance as Chase Manhattan, Morgan Stanley and Arthur Andersen, as well as such towering figures of US policy-making as Zbigniew Brzezinski (a consultant for Amoco). Furthermore, when Amoco merged with British Petroleum a year later, the deal was facilitated by the law firm of Baker & Botts, whose principal attorney is James Baker – the Bush (Sr.) administration’s Secretary of State, and a member of the Carlyle Group. The Taliban regime was clearly unsure which of its suitors to wed. The main stumbling block for Unocal was that its pipeline was closed to Afghanistan (meant for export only), while that proposed by Bridas would also service the local market. Furthermore, tensions between the US and Russia led Gazprom to withdraw from the Unocal-led consortium, CentGas. Thus, as it became clearer that Taliban policy-makers were beginning to lean toward Bridas by late 1997, the Clinton administration responded by suddenly paying heed to human rights/women’s groups who had been protesting Taliban conduct for the past two years. In November 1997, after years of relative quiet, Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publically condemned the Taliban’s treatment of women during a visit to an Afghani refugee camp in Pakistan. She also made it plain that the US government was ‘opposed’ to the Taliban regime, stating: “It’s very clear why we’re opposed to Taliban. We’re opposed to their approach to human rights, to their despicable treatment of women and children and their lack of respect for human dignity…” By January 1998, the Taliban regime had responded by signing an agreement with Unocal to begin raising funds for a pipeline, but made no commitment to actually engage Unocal in its construction. Thus, Unocal’s Vice President of International Relations appeared before the US Congress in February 1998, basically calling for the removal of the Taliban regime. By March that year, Unocal formally announced that it was delaying the project. While anti-Taliban statements from the Clinton administration grew more frequent in the coming months, matters were not brought to a head until August 1998, when the US embassy bombings in East Africa (attributed to Usama bin Laden) prompted Clinton to launch a barrage of cruise missiles on Afghanistan and Sudan, and call for the Taliban to expel Bin Laden. Interestingly, the latter’s presence in Afghanistan since 1996 had not stalled the courtship of the previous years, despite being implicated in earlier acts of ‘terror’ for which the Sudanese government hounded him out of their country to avoid sanctions. The day after the missile strikes, Unocal announced that it was halting its pipeline project. By December 1998, a formal withdrawal from the project was issued. The Clinton administration then issued an executive order seizing all US-held Taliban assets and prohibiting trade, effectively breaking off diplomatic contacts in the process. Soon after that the UN Security Council passed a resolution imposing sanctions and calling for the Taliban regime to “turn over the terrorist Usama bin Laden.” The Taliban regime offered negotiations on Bin Laden’s handover, particularly with regard to whose custody exactly the ‘terrorist’ would be released, but these overtures were ignored in favour of another UN resolution and further sanctions on the heels of the USS Cole bombing in 2000 (also attributed to Usama bin Laden). As for US-Pakistan relations, cordiality prevailed, as already suggested by Nawaz Sharif’s Washington visit in 1998, but chilled considerably, particularly after the 1999 Kargil Conflict with India in Kashmir, and General Musharraf’s subsequent military coup. Returning to the ultimate question of ‘Exactly what is…being fought,’ the above history confirms that just as in the Cold War period (1979-89) and the era of proxy war (1989-92), so too in the early phase of the Taliban era (1992-1998), neither the ‘militant’ nor his ‘ideology’ was being fought. Rather, he was courted and his ideology utilized for US strategic and economic interests, particularly as both converged in a slick of oil by 1995. Furthermore, considering that it was only when absolute control of that oil was challenged that the Taliban regime was openly discredited, it must be said that although this ‘militant’ and his ‘ideology’ were publically ‘being fought’ from 1998 to 2001, other ‘militants’ with similar ‘ideologies’ continued to find support, and even that could have been dropped in favour of the Taliban at any point if it had compromised on the issue of oil. Confirmation of this hypothesis, in fact, comes with the inauguration of President Bush (Jr.), one of whose first acts in January and February, 2001, was to open negotiations between the US and the Taliban regime, conducted in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad, in which Laila Helms (niece of former CIA Director Richard Helms) was hired by the Taliban to act as go-between; negotiations that ended around May, 2001, according to various sources including a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, with the ultimatum that the Unocal pipeline would go ahead or bombs would rain on Afghanistan. From 1998 to 2001, therefore, the Taliban ‘militant’ was fought in the name of his ‘ideology,’ but in the interests of oil. But, what of planes becoming bombs over New York and Washington on September 11, 2001? Did that not change everything? According to Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy – a study of the convergence between US Evangelical Christian ‘extremism,’ US geo-political policy and global oil interests – one thing did change. Although the Taliban continued to offer negotiations on the handover of Usama bin Laden, the atrocities of 9/11 “gave Washington [oil] policies a convenient new all-inclusive justification: fighting terror was about everything, and everything was about fighting terror. Oil motivations, rarely a popular or easy foreign-policy justification, could now be submerged within a primal response to a deep-seated national combination of fear, loathing and outrage. Petroleum strategy could now become only a minor facet of an antiterrorist mobilization.” Furthermore, as Bruce Lincoln – professor of religion at the University of Chicago – adds, taking into account Bush’s ‘religious’ affiliations, the pursuit of strategic interests could even transcend the previous rhetoric of ‘human’ and ‘women’s rights,’ to be framed as an eternal, uncompromising struggle between ‘good’ and ‘evil’; a form of rhetoric ironically akin to that of Usama bin Laden himself. And finally, as David Domke – associate professor of communication at the University of Washington – asserts with a chorus of other scholars, in the double-speak of the Bush administration, what this was meant to imply is that by fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida, “the US government…[was] doing God’s work.” That interests on the more worldly ground of US oil strategy lay behind this ratcheting of rhetoric under the Bush (Jr.) administration, is confirmed by a number of other factors, including bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq on the unfounded accusation of links to 9/11, not to mention ‘WMDs.’ Furthermore, consider the major players post-9/11. Apart from Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage and other prominent Republicans’ affiliated with oil companies active in Central Asia, it can be added that Condolezza Rice (Bush’s National Security Advisor [2000-04] and Secretary of State [2004-09]) had served on the board of Chevron before entering government. As well, Zalmay Khalilzad (appointed US Special Envoy to Afghanistan [2001-03], Ambassador to Afghanistan [2003-05], Ambassador to Iraq [2005-07] and Ambassador to the UN [2007-09]) was a former consultant for Unocal and part of the Unocal team that courted the Taliban in the US. At the time, he wrote, “We [the US government] should ... be willing to offer recognition and humanitarian assistance and to promote international economic reconstruction.” Furthermore, Hamid Karzai, whose rise to power was in no small measure facilitated by US aid through the offices of Khalilzad, was also a Unocal consultant who had participated in Unocal’s courtship of the Taliban in the US. One of Karzai’s first acts as President of Afghanistan, in fact, was the signing of a new agreement with Turkmenistan and Pakistan on the building of a pipeline in 2002. The greatest problem in going ahead with pipeline plans during the tenure of the Bush (Jr.) administration, however, was a collective failure in defeating the Taliban to bring about the stability necessary to get down to work in Afghanistan. In fact, the failure was so complete that the Taliban also sprouted a Pakistani chapter that began to threaten the ability of all involved to even consider the Pakistani portion of a pipeline safe for investment in the immediate future. And, what of the election of President Obama and his administration’s ‘new’ plan for the region; has that not changed everything? To be sure, the Obama administration’s abandonment of Bush’s ‘religious’ rhetoric has to some extent succeeded in redressing the impression created by Bush among ordinary Muslims that his was a ‘war against Islam.’ Obama’s rhetorical lumping of Pakistan together with Afghanistan as part of the ‘Af-Pak’ problem is novel, too, but ultimately reflects no more than a response to the failure of the Bush administration to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan, leading to the destabilization of nuclear-armed Pakistan. The warfront is now bigger and all that the ‘Af-Pak’ strategy reconfirms is that an important element of the ‘New World Order’ now cannot go forward unless the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban is defeated or co-opted. That only his ‘militancy,’ rather than his ‘ideology,’ is at stake, however, continues to be confirmed by various maneuvers. The US-backed Karzai regime in Afghanistan, now as before, accommodates the Taliban-type ‘militant’ and ‘ideology’ within the Afghani body-politic. In fact, Hillary Clinton has even publically endorsed President Karzai’s attempts to open talks with “moderate” members of the Afghani Taliban. The only definition of the “moderate” she provided was those “willing to abandon violence, break with al Qaeda and support the constitution.” As well, the US-backed Zardari regime in Pakistan, now as before, accommodates the Taliban-type ‘militant’ and ‘ideology,’ and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke met with the leader of Jama’at-i Ulama-i Islam as recently as October, 2009. Most telling, however, is the recent promulgation of the Kerry-Lugar Aid Bill, which includes specific conditions concerning Pakistani support for ‘militants’ in neighbouring countries, but makes no real mention of ‘ideology’ abroad or at home. From 2001 to the present, therefore, just as in the period from 1998-2001, the Taliban ‘militant’ has been fought in the name of his ‘ideology,’ though the failures of Bush (Jr,) have added such immediate concerns as military defeat in Afghanistan and the stabilization of Pakistan to the long-term interests of oil. ‘Exactly what…is being fought’ today, Roy astutely asks. The short answer is that today, as has been the case since 1979, neither a specific ‘militant’ nor ‘ideology’ is ‘being fought.’ Rather, the target of operations, for which more troops are now being sought, is anyone who challenges the interests of an oil-drenched ‘New World Order.’ M. Reza Pirbhai is an Assistant Professor of South Asian History at Louisiana State University. He can be reached at: rpirbhai@lsu.edu

1. Cabsideenna, Allah oo qudhaa ayaa mudan, geesina ma aha kan garab mara Muraadka Allah oo uu ku muujiyey Quraanka iyo Sunnada Rasuulkiisa SAWS, oo hiigsada ummado lumay tubta ay mareen ( Qaaruun iyo maalkiisii). Qofkaan diyaar u aheyn inuu u dhinto wuxuu rumeysan yahay ayaa dhab ahaantii ku sugan fuleynimo fikri ah. 2. Wax la raaco waxaa ugu xaq badan Quraanka, wax lagu daysadana waxaa ugu haboon Sunnada Rasuulkiisa SAWS. 3. Horumarka adduunka, ma aha qiyaasta lagu qiyaaso guusha iyo wanaagga la hiigsado oo loo shaqeysto, Hadday maal bannanaan leheyd in lagu iibsado horumarka dunida diinta Allah, Anbiyadii hore ayaa noo bilaabi lahaa, maxaa yeelay lama ayan dirireen Fircown, oo loo daawasho tago horumarkuu gaaray ilaa iyo maanta, asagoo laynayay, Yuhuudda taagta daran ee uu u addoonsan jiray sida maanta naloo addoonsado oo qaarkeen raalli ku yihiin una raadinayaan in gun nimadaas ay ku sugnaadan. 4.In lagu Jeesjeeso Jannooyinka Allah u ballan qaaday addoontiisana wanaagsan wexey tilmaan u tahay cudur qoto dheer oo qalbiga qoraaga ku jira, Allaha hadeeyo. Taariikhdii hore ayaa na tuseysa in ummadihii hore ay marwalba jiri jirtay halgan dhex yaallay, kuwa Quraanku ku tilmaamo " Malaa" iyo kuwa la liido " Mustadcafiin" 5. Markaan dhameeyay qoraalka akhrintiisa, waxaa iiga baxay in Qoraagan uu xaqa barbar maray, diintana, isagoo dusha ka maray taariikhdeeda soke, uu isku qasay mawaadiic aan islaheyn si uu u gaadho natiijo mar hore uu gaadhay una raadinayo inuu ku asaleeyo fikri cusub, ee aan aheyn nin si cilmiyeysan u baadhay dhibaatada umadda heysata oo is garab dhigay Muraadka Alle ka leeyahay uunkiisa, iyo Xaaladda taagan, dabadeedna u bidhaantay in Alle loogu dhawaan karo dariiq cusub oo xikmad ku dhisan oo ay arki waayeen 100kii sano oo na soo dhaafay mufakiriintii Islamka oo dhan, wuxuuna qoraaga iigu muuqdaa inuu yahay labo midkood: 1. Nin lumay, isagoo xaq doona ah, cilmi darrana dadka ku luminaya. 2. Nin barbaar ku jira Maa yujaadilu fii aayatillahi illa alladiina kafaruu, falaa YAGHRURKA TAQALUBUHUM FIL BILAAD. Nur

From Delusion to Vindictiveness Interpreting the Zionist Dream By Gilad Atzmon “The socio-economic structure of the Jewish people differs radically from that of other nations. Ours is an anomalous, abnormal structure.” (Ber Borochov- The Economic Development of the Jewish People 1917) “You [Jews] lack the right notion of honour, feeling for duty, morality, patriotism, idealism….” (Max Nordau - Address at the 1st Zionist Congress 1897) “But labour is the only force which binds man to the soil… it is the basic energy for the creation of national culture. This is what we do not have, but we are not aware of missing it. We are a people without a country, without a national living language, without a national culture. We seem to think that if we have no labour it does not matter - let Ivan, John or Mustafa do the work…” (A.D. Gordon, "Our Tasks Ahead" 1920) October 13, 2009 "ICH" -- - Early Zionism was indeed a cheerful dream, it was all about the transformation of the ‘Jew’ into a ‘civilised, respectful and authentic human being’. The founders of Zionism were inspired by the notions of ‘people like any other people’ and ‘nation amongst nations’. Reading early Zionists such as Nordau, Borochov and Gordon provides us with some very contemptuous references to Jewish character and identity that would make Nazi ideology look mildly liberal. However, one is advised to take a short break for a second and to contemplate critically over the above Zionist dream. One may wonder what kind of people dream of ‘becoming human beings’. Can anyone imagine a French, English or Chinese man or woman who dreams of becoming an ordinary ‘human’? We can easily think of oppressed human beings who demand to be treated as humans (Palestinians, Civil Rights movements, anti Apartheid and so on). Yet, the Zionist dream is rather different. It is not just about the desire for recognition or equality, it is not just about being treated appropriately, it is also a dream of ‘self-transformation’. In fact, it is all about a miraculous metamorphosis from a morbid ‘abnormal’ state of being into an acceptable decent human form. Within the context of a fictional fable we can easily imagine a cow that fantasises to become a dairy farmer, a pig who ‘dies to’ become a Kosher schnitzel, a snake who aspires to take over the Labour party and then to launch a new Zionist illegal war. And yet, it is pretty unusual to think of people who have managed to develop an aspiration to become ‘ordinary humans’. An intelligible way to explain or interpret that very unusual dream is probably to assume that those who succumb to the Zionist dream are those who happen to believe that, as far as their natural state of being is concerned, they are indeed remotely human. One would rightly assume that those who dream to become humans must be convinced that humanity is somehow not exactly a characteristic that they happen to possess. Yesterday during a talk at Librairie Résistances, Paris (a fund raising event for Gaza) I was asked for my interpretation of Israeli ‘evolving barbarism’, how is it possible that 84% of the Israelis supported the IDF genocidal crime in Gaza last December. “In order to understand how these Israeli murderous practices emerged” I said, “all we have to do is to trace back and reread the early Zionist ideologists." We can easily learn from Zionist thinkers about their ‘dream’ and their vision of their fellow brothers. They, the founders of modern Jewish nationalism happened to admit somehow that something was totally corrupted within the Jewish identity, culture and character. However, they genuinely believed that it was amendable. Zionism was there to bring about a new Jew, a civilised productive human being. It was indeed a very wet and epic dream. As an Israeli youngster I myself succumbed to this dream. I tended to believe that Israel was ‘my’ historic land, I regarded the Biblical protagonists as my direct ancestors. I was sure that, at least in the case of the so called ‘first Israelis’, the ideological transplant operation was a great success. We, the young Israeli natives tended to believe that we were all nothing less than a success story of ‘modified-civilised-humanist-secular-beings’. Needless to say that the history of Palestine, the Palestinians and the Nakba was totally hidden from us. We didn’t see the Palestinians around us either, we were hardly aware of their suffering not to say their cause. We were in fact totally blind. We tended also to believe that our army was the ‘most humanist army around’. We grew up with the ‘1967 Victorious Diary’, a legendary chunky photo album every Israeli held in a prominent location on his book shelve. There in that glossy propaganda book an Israeli soldier was giving his water to an Egyptian prisoner. We regarded him as a symbol of our people’s endorsement of universal humanism. We were obviously not aware of the horrendous fact that the Sinai Desert was actually a slaughter field for hundreds of Egyptian POWs. Why didn’t we know? This in itself is a very good question. Our fathers who fought in this war must have known something but they kept quiet. Our parents who witnessed the 1948 convoys of Palestinians refugees should have known something about the Nakba but they somehow kept quiet. Interestingly enough, it wasn’t just our parents, we followed the exact same pattern. Once we ourselves matured into IDF soldiers, we did exactly the same, we turned a blind eye (1982 in Lebanon). And this has never changed. The Israeli moral awakening has never happened. By now I allow myself to argue that it won’t happen. The Zionist dream is just too comfortable. After more than one hundred years of moral phantasmic delusion the Israelis are deeply stuck in an ethical coma. The Zionist dream of a ‘humanist metamorphosis’ has never matured into reality or practice. Quite the opposite, Israelis and Zionists have learned to see themselves through a phantasmic illusionary prism. Rather than being transformed into humanists for real, they have become ‘leading humanists’ in their own extreme judeo-centric dream. Freud taught us that the dream is there to prolong the sleep: a siren, a baby cry and a dripping tap that takes place in the outside would be incorporated into the dream so we can keep snoozing. The ‘Israeli humanist dream’ operates in a similar manner, it is there to prolong the Zionist snore, it is there to keep Jews aloof to the crimes that are committed by their state, and in their names. The disturbances that come from the ‘outside world’ such as the Goldstone report or Ahmadinejad’s valid criticisms are incorporated into their dream as ‘white noise’ motivated by ‘pathological antisemitism’. Though in reality the Jewish state is barbarian with no comparison, in their dream, it is nothing but ‘business as usual’. The daily reality of Israeli barbarism in Palestine should bring us back to elaborate over the Zionist dream of transformation. In spite of the great promise, the Jewish state has failed to become a ‘nation like other nations’. Similarly, the Zionist people are not exactly ‘people like other people’ for no other people approve genocide collectively. The Jewish state that was supposed to be a celebration of identity transformation became instead the ultimate embodiment of the morbid symptoms Zionism was there to heal. Israel has already managed to surround itself by gigantic ghetto walls, it spits fire and WMD on its indigenous population. It locks millions in concentration camps and starves them. As bizarre as it may be, only in the face of Israeli colossal barbarism, can one adequately understand the full meaning of the irony of the Zionist dream of humanist metamorphosis. Zionism was doomed to fail: it is a blood related project, it is racially orientated and it is supremacist to the bone. The Zionist dream has become a true devastating nightmare for real: the Golem* Jewish State wakes up every morning to commit more and more crimes in the name of the Jewish people. With an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear bombs and motivated by a phantasmic Holocaust religion that preaches nothing but vengeance, there is no greater danger to humanity, humanism and our civilization than Israel and its lobbies around the world. All I have to say is beware! *Golem – a Yiddish Frankenstein

NATO NAVY IN SOMALIA WATERS: PROTECTION OF AGGRESSION? OR CLOSE ENCOUNTERS TUNA WARS BETWEEN THE TAIWANESE AND EUROPEAN HIGH-SEAS TUNA THIEVES? French marines fire at alleged Somali pirates in Indian Ocean Written by ECOTERRA - SMCM French marines providing protection on board French fishing vessels in the Indian Ocean early on Saturday fired on alleged pirates to repel a dawn attack, first reports said. "Three small launches... (which were) nearly invisible and that we had on the radar at the last moment, chased us," a member of the crew of the FV DRENNAC, one of two French fishing vessels approached by the pirates, told AFP by telephone. The French marines on board to provide protection "at first fired warning shots, then they fired at the target," he added. The French military said the marines had first fired flares then "warning shots in the air and across the bows of the pirates' boats", before finally, when the pirates opened fire "probably with Kalashnikovs", aimed at the skiffs, which "immediately stopped pursuing" their target. Where exactly? The incident first was said to have taken place 195 nautical miles (350 kilometres) north of the Seychelles and AFP reported that there were no casualties on the French side. It, however, can not be ruled out that the 195nm "positioning" was conveniently chosen, because is would be inside the 200nm EEZ of the Seychelles, where a Somali-flagged vessel not necessarily would have a permission to fish or to carry arms. EU NAVFOR HQ refused to provide an exact position of the incident. The latest attack on FV Drennec, fishing in tandem with FV Glenan, took place some 20 nautical miles (36 kilometres) from the place where pirates last week attacked a cargo vessel, a source told AFP. In a later report Reuters stated that the attack took place some 350 km (220 miles = 195nmiles) from the Seychelles. It seems to be clear that the French marines on board of re-flagged French vessels now sailing under the flag of the Seychelles have the authority to use military force and firearms inside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Seychelles. Some maritime lawyers however foresee legal complications with the use of firearms by the French against Somali nationals in Somali vessels.within or outside the Seychelles EEZ "The French military fired on pirates in the Indian Ocean on Saturday to protect two tuna fishing vessels," the spokesman for France's armed forces Christophe Prazuck confirmed to Reuters. The Somalis didn't fire back.[/b ] "If it was in in international waters, the Somali seafarers have the same rights to fish and to carry arms as the French or anybody else and since the French fired first it then would have been an attack by France against Somalia, which normally would also have serious diplomatic consequences," a political analyst remarked in Nairobi. Several Ambassadors of coastal states have stated in the corridors during the last UN Security Council session that such law-bending examples could be used as precedence by several naval powers to also show similar aggression off their coasts. "French soldiers opened fire on two small launches that were trying to approach the vessels bearing the French ensign. No one was injured on the tuna ships, which are based at Concarneau, in southern Brittany, the spokesman said. There were shots ... it lasted half an hour and at one point they turned around," the captain of one of the tuna vessels, Christophe Guyader, told France Bleu Breizh Izel radio. The report was confirmed to AFP by a "western source sailing in the same area". He said that the pirate skiffs that came under fire returned to a mother ship of some 30 metres (90 feet) in length. "Likely an old Asian long-liner, like the Win Far, which has been under surveillance for the past several months when it was anchored off the Somali coast. Mothership nabbed ? This could be a vessel of the notorious Taiwanese WIN FAR fleet regional observes confirmed. Naval surveillance planes were dispatched to locate the attackers and several warships involved in the Atalanta operation headed into that zone following the attempted attack on the French fishing vessel. A Seychelles coastguard vessel, the Topaz, immediately gave chase to the mother ship and was closing in on it around midday, the same source said. Latest informations from the Seychelles and from other fishing vessels in the area stated that the Seychelles coastguard actually has captured the mothership, while other sources maintain that a group of naval ships surrounded the mothership and only called in the Seychelles coastguard to take over for legal reasons, now stating again that it was within the area, which belong to the 200nm EEZ of the Seychelles. Coast guard officials from the Seychelles reportedly disabled the engine of a boat believed to be with pirates involved in the attack, Jacqueline Sherriff, chief press officer for the maritime unit of NATO in Northwood, outside London, told AP. No other details of that confrontation were immediately available and no clear identity of the alleged mothership was provided. The NATO spokeswoman says 11 suspected pirates have been captured and she confirmed that the coast guard of the Seychelles captured one boat with eight suspects on board. She says three men were discovered aboard another boat believed to be their mothership. The Seychelles' coast guard is holding the 11, whose nationality was not known to her, she added as reported by AP. Protection or Aggression ? It is the first time that the French soldiers, who have been providing protection since July 1 on board about 10 French fishing ships off the Somali coast, have opened fire on alleged pirates. "There were no casualties aboard the French boats, the Drennac and the Glenan and it proves that this measure (having soldiers on board) works," the western source told AFP. All those aboard the French boats were unharmed but it was not clear if any pirates were injured, the French navy told AP. "Isn't it wonderful how this "sailing Western source" - which only can mean a naval vessel - had this morning apparently no idea that there would be a "pirate-mothership" in the area," Somalia's Anti-Piracy envoy remarked. "Until today the international armada of naval vessels has not a single time arrested or averted any vessel fishing illegally in the Somali waters, though there are plenty of documented cases." Ishmail Haji Noor asked. also how many unauthorized fishing vessels are in the area in addition to the 3,450 "authorized" vessels currently listed by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) with 28 different flags in the record, but the navies would not tell him. The tuna fishing industry is worth up to $6 billion annually across the Indian Ocean region. FV Glénan and Drennec belong both to the fleet of the Breton fishing company Cobrepêche, based at Concarneau in Brittany (western France) and form together with the Spanish purse-seiners a fleet of the worlds largest tuna hunters, which currently have come together in the Indian Ocean. The world largest tuna-hauler, the 115 m long Spanish flagged FV ALBATUN TRES, which can take around 3,000 tons in one go and was chased away from it's looting sprees around Kiribati last year by a joint resolution of Pacific Island States, is now also further depleting the dwindling stocks of yellow-fin tuna in the Indian Ocean off Somalia. Some 60 marines are involved in this French protection measure, which was put in place at the request of ship owners and is distinct from both the European Union and NATO anti-piracy operations in the region - this most likely in order to avoid that they have to report to a neutral body or a non-French command. Spanish fishing vessels operating in the same region have called for the same protection measures but Madrid has so far refused, saying Spanish law does not allow it and in any case there are not enough troops available. A Spanish vessel, the giant tuna hauler the Alakrana, was captured September 2 on the high seas between Somalia and the Seychelles with 36 crew on board. The captors brought the vessel to the Somali coast and it is currently anchored off Harardheere, a central Somalia coastal town. It is under surveillance from two frigates that are part of the European anti-piracy initiative Atalanta. Two Somalis who allegedly had left from the Alakrana came under fire by Spanish commandos, who injured one and arrested both. Since then a stand-off has developed and negotiation efforts have been so far fruitless. On Wednesday Somali pirates operating at night attacked a French military command and supply ship, La Somme, after mistaking it for a cargo vessel, and five were captured by the naval crew., while one Somali skiff escaped. Marines or Mercenaries ? Like the fishing vessels cable-laying ships have used on-board military escorts as well. Ships pay the price tag of such operations. While they don't pay soldiers' base salaries, they do pay for extras including airline tickets and hotels, French naval spokesman Prazuck confirmed to AP, thereby once again showing that naval forces do rent out their services to private ventures - a practice which the navies tried to keep for a long time secret. Prazuck declined to give specifics about the number of soldiers stationed aboard such boats and their weapons, but he said they were equipped with firearms strong enough to give them an advantage over the pirates' arms of choice, Kalashnikov rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. French Defence Minister Herve Morin said Saturday the presence of the marines aboard trawlers "is planned to continue throughout the fishing season to ensure as much security as possible to fishermen." Hailing the response to the latest attack, he said he intended to visit the region for talks with authorities in Seychelles. Somali pirates are currently holding four foreign vessels and 111 seamen, according to environmental protection and human rights group ECOTERRA International. There have been 174 attacks since the start of the year 2009 with 49 vessels seized. Attacks have been on the rise again since the end of the monsoon season that has brought calmer seas. On Wednesday Somali pirates operating at night attacked a French military command ship and petrol tanker La Somme after mistaking it for a cargo vessel. French armed forces spokesman Christophe Prazuck said pirate attacks had been decreasing, with between 10 and 15 boats on average being held last year compared with four currently. "It is still too soon to say whether this reduction is due to the actions of the international community ... or the weather. We are coming out of the monsoon season, which is not favorable toward the pirates' small boats," he added.

Baarakallahu feek akhi, a late answer, but well thought out one, I pray that Allah SWT show me, you and all of those who seek Him the Xaq. The Prophet SAWS taught us the following Duaa: " Allahumma arinaa al Xaqqa Xaqqan, wa arzuqnaa ittibaacuhu, wa arinaa al Baatila baatilan wa arzuqnaa Ijtinaabahu" meaning, "O Allah, show us the Xaq as "The XAQ", and help us to follow. And show us the Baatil as "The Baatil" and help us to part ways with it" The Hadeeth tells us that: 1. Not all the people see the Xaq, Allah SWT says in Quraan about this group: " Bal aktharum laa yaclamuuna al xaqa fa hum mucriduun" meaning, most of them do not know the XAQ, so they are against it" 2. Not all of those who see the Xaq, see it as THE GENUINE XAQ , but they see it as Baatil. Allah SWT says in Quraan from the perspective of the disbelievers as they see the believers " Low kaana kheiran maa sabaquunaa ileyh" Meaning " If what these { Zealots) follow was the good, they would not have beaten us to it" . Allah also gives another example of this group as they see the believers "Gharra Haa ulaa i diinuhum" meaning, " These folks ( believers) got carried away with their religious zeal" Of those who see the Xaq as truly the Xaq: 3. Most of them do not follow the Xaq. Allah says about this group " Wa ammaa Thamuudu fa hadeynaahum fastaxabbul camaa calaal Huda" As for the Nation of Aad, we have guided them, but they preferred blindness (following their desires) instead of guidance. Allah SWT said: "If you dispute on an issue, then refer it to Allah ( Quraan) and the Messenger ( Sunnah)" . So our discussion on who is on Xaq path and who is on Baatil path shall be arbitrated by the Quraan and Sunnah alone inshAllah, which is the path of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaacah (not the Sufi Group in Somalia, which strangely, you have not said anything negative about in terms of Xaq). I agree with you brother that neither side is on the Fullest form of Xaq, but to claim that one side is misguided, which implies that the other side is guided needs some clarification. Also akhi, to accuse the opposition to be Khawarij also implies that the TFG is the legitimate Khilaafa or Waliyul amr of the believers, who anyone who disobeys their authority the Sharia considers to be OUTLAWS which literally means in the Arabic Language KHAWARIJ, a historical deviant group that is well known to have rebelled against the legitimate Khilaafa government of Uthman RAA. Allah SWT says in Quraan: Wa laa taqfu Maaleysa laka bihi cilm" Meaning, " do not follow something that you have no knoweledge of" Based on that verse, we need to evaluate your accusation that these groups opposing the TFG to be genuinely Khawarij, because if they are found that they are NOT Khawarij, you have just earned a sin in following something that you heard from someone else without a solid knowledge which is not allowed in Islam, because, your sight, hearing and Mind are all meant to help you see the XAQ " Inna as Samca, wal basara wal fu'aada kullu ulaa ika kaana canhu Mas uulaa". InshAllah, let us clarify and agree on this misunderstanding first so that we can discuss the real issue of what constitutes the XAQ in depth, since it will put the discussion in perspective. So please let me know what daleel sharci ( Legal proof) that you have that makes the opposition Khawarij, and makes the Sheikh Shareef Waliyul Amr to be followed, or in the case that you believe that neither is on Xaq, then who is on XAQ? because we can't just sit and wait for Allah to change the condition in which we live to a better one without an effort. By the way, I truly feel that you are a sincere brother who is seeking the Xaq, and you will be in my prayer that Allah: 1. Shows all of us all the Xaq. 2. Show us the Xaq, as it is, THE RAW XAQ 3. And further help us to Follow it, so that we do no follow something that we have no knowledge of. Amin Muxibbukum Fillah Nur

War, What Is it Good For? Iraq to Deal Oil in Euros By Digby October 09,2009 "AlterNet" -- You may remember that among the million and one reasons why we may have "really" gone into Iraq was this one, embraced mostly by alleged conspiracy theorists and silly leftists who thought that the invasion might have something to do with oil and the dollar: UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- A U.N. panel on Monday approved Iraq's plan to receive oil-export payments in Europe's single currency after Baghdad decided to move the start date back a week. Members of the Security Council's Iraqi sanctions committee said the panel's chairman, Dutch Ambassador Peter van Walsum, would inform U.N. officials on Tuesday of the decision to allow Iraq to receive payments in euros, rather than dollars. Today, there is a lot of chatter about this: In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar. Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars. Nobody knows for sure that this is happening, but if it is, it's a profound change, and one that may have simply been put off by our little six year adventure in the middle east. Ian Welsh unpacks what this would mean for all of us over at C&L. Shorter Ian: for a lot of reasons, "it will hurt."

Bint Hamid sis Somalia need Namads like you to help bring about a positive change. Nur

Ethiopia and Kenya should file a lawsuit against who?

FBI Tries to Deport Muslim Man for Refusing to be an Informant After Imam Foad Farahi declined to become a federal informant, the government tried to destroy him. By Trevor Aaronson October 08, 2009 "Miami New Times" -- Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards signs littered the lawns of North Miami Beach as Imam Foad Farahi walked from a mosque to his apartment a few blocks away. It was November 1, 2004, the day before George W. Bush would win a second term in office. But the Muslim holy man had been too busy fasting and praying to pay much attention to the presidential election. For Farahi, an Iranian citizen who had lived in the United States for more than a decade, it was simply another month of Ramadan in South Florida. Then, around 5 p.m., as he neared his apartment, he saw two men standing outside. They were waiting for him. "We're from the FBI," one of the men said. "OK," he responded. They wanted to know about José Padilla and Adnan El Shukrijumah, two South Florida men linked to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. Padilla, the so-called Dirty Bomber, was arrested in May 2002 and initially given enemy combatant status. He eventually stood trial in Miami, was convicted on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 17 years in prison. Shukrijumah is a Saudi Arabian and an alleged Al-Qaeda member whose last known address was in Miramar. The FBI is offering up to $5 million for information leading directly to his capture. "I know José Padilla, but I don't know Adnan," Farahi told the agents. Of course, Farahi knew of Shukrijumah. As imam of the Shamsuddin Islamic Center in North Miami Beach, Farahi was in a unique position to know about local Muslims, including Padilla and Shukrijumah. Padilla had prayed at Farahi's mosque and was once among his Arabic students. Shukrijumah was the son of a local Islamic religious leader. "I have had no contact with Padilla since 1998, when he left the country," Farahi told the government agents. He had once met Shukrijumah but had no contact with him after that. "I don't know anything about his activities." "We want you to work with us," Farahi remembers the agents telling him. And this is when the imam's five-year battle with the federal government began. "I have no problem working with you guys or helping you out," Farahi said. He could keep them informed about the local Muslim community or translate Arabic. But the relationship, he insisted, would need to be public; others would have to know he was helping the government. But that wasn't what the FBI had in mind, Farahi says. The agents wanted him to become a secret informant who would investigate specific people. And they knew Farahi was in a vulnerable position. His student visa had expired, and he had asked the government for a renewal. He had also applied for political asylum, hoping one of those legal tracks would offer a way for him to stay in the United States indefinitely. "We'll give you residency," the agents promised. "We'll give you money to go to school." Farahi considered the offer for a moment and then shook his head. "I can't," he told them. The slender, bearded 34-year-old Farahi frowns as he recalls all of this while sitting on a white folding chair in the Shamsuddin Islamic Center on a recent afternoon. "People trust you as a religious figure, and you're trying to kind of deceive them," he says, remembering the choice he faced. "That's where the problem is." Farahi soon discovered the FBI's offer wasn't optional. The federal government used strong-arm tactics — including trying to have him deported and falsely claiming it had information linking him to terrorism — in an effort to force him to become an informant, he says. The imam has resisted the government at every step, having most recently taken his political asylum case to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. "As long as you're not a citizen, there are lots of things [the government] can do," says Ira Kurzban, Farahi's attorney. "They can allege you're a terrorist and try to bring terrorist charges against you, or they can get you deported." Terrorism, he explains, can even be defined as giving "money to a hospital in the West Bank that turns out to be run by Hamas." Farahi asserts unequivocally he is innocent of any terrorism charges the government could bring against him. In fact, he says, he would report anyone in the Muslim community supporting terrorism. "From the Islamic perspective, it's your duty to respect the law, and if there's anything going on, any crime about to be committed, or any kind of harm to be caused to people or property, it should be reported to the police," he says. The FBI's intense efforts to pressure Farahi into becoming an informant reveal the bureau's desperation to infiltrate local Muslim communities. The hard-line tactics have become so widespread in the United States that the San Francisco-based civil rights group Muslim Advocates distributes a video advising how to respond if FBI agents approach. In fact, relations between the FBI and U.S. Islamic communities are so strained that a coalition of Muslim-American groups in March accused the government of using "McCarthy-era tactics" and threatened to sever communication with the FBI unless it "reassessed its use of agent provocateurs in Muslim communities." Despite this public conflict, few specific cases of Muslims being recruited as informants have become public. Farahi's battle with the government is not only daring but also unusual. "People have two choices," Farahi says. "Either they end up working with the FBI, or they leave the country on their own. It's just sometimes when you're in that situation, not many people are strong enough to stand up and resist and fight — to reject their offers." ---------- By law, Foad Farahi is an Iranian. But by every other measure, the North Miami Beach imam is something else. In his 34 years, he has never set foot in Iran. He speaks Arabic, not Farsi, and while the majority of Iranians are members of the Shia sect of Islam, Farahi is a Sunni. He is an Iranian only because he inherited his father's citizenship. But Farahi grew up in Kuwait. His father was an Iranian businessman who operated a currency exchange business in Kuwait City. His mother, a Syrian, raised him and his younger sister to speak Arabic and worship as Sunnis. But he knew his future would never be secure in Kuwait. "Even if I married a Kuwaiti woman, I wouldn't become a citizen," he says. "Kuwait could deport me to Iran at any time for any reason." At age 19, he applied for and received a student visa from the United States. He chose to come to South Florida, where his family once vacationed when he was a teenager, and enrolled in Miami Dade College. He received an associate's degree there and transferred to Barry University, the private Catholic school in Miami Shores, where he earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry. While at Barry, he served on the university's interfaith committee, several faculty members recall. This continued even after he graduated. He helped put together interfaith dinners and talked about Islam. In addition, he participated as a teacher in a Barry University peace forum attended by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim children. "He has had a positive influence at this university," says Edward R. Sunshine, a theology professor at Barry. No one who knows Farahi, Sunshine says, would suspect he is radical or militant in any way. Farahi went on to obtain a master's degree in public health from Florida International University. He also began an intensive, three-year imam's training course administered by the director of Islamic studies at a mosque in Miramar. In 2000, the Shamsuddin Islamic Center opened near his home in North Miami Beach. Six months later, its imam returned home to Egypt, and Farahi was a logical successor. In Islam, an imam is among the designated leaders in a community or mosque. The imam leads prayers during gatherings and helps others understand the teachings of Islam. Farahi earns a modest salary funded by donations to the mosque. It was through this position that he met several South Floridians who have been linked to terrorism. In addition to Padilla and Shukrijumah, he encountered Imran Mandhai, a 19-year-old Pakistani man living in Hollywood who was arrested in 2002 for an alleged plot to bomb power plants. "Imran came here once years ago during Ramadan," Farahi recalls as he sits in a corner of the mosque. "It was a big event for him at the time. He memorized and recited the Koran." When Farahi met with the FBI agents November 1, 2004, he said he couldn't spy on members of his mosque in good conscience. Two days later, FBI agents phoned him. They requested he come to their office to take a polygraph. "I had nothing to hide," Farahi recalls. "They asked the same questions over and over, to see if my answer would change, and it didn't." The agents were still focused on Shukrijumah. "What is your relationship with him?" "When was the last time you were in contact with him?" "Where is he now?" For two and a half years after the polygraph, Farahi didn't hear from the FBI. Then, in summer 2007, he received another call from the bureau. An agent asked to meet with him immediately. In Cooper City, two FBI agents — a man and a woman — again asked Farahi if he would work with the government. He again declined, and the meeting ended amicably. Farahi didn't know the pushback would come later. ---------- On a November day in 2007, Farahi arrived at Miami Immigration Court for what he thought would be a routine hearing on his political asylum case. The imam had requested asylum because he is a Sunni, a persecuted religious minority in Iran. Fear of religious persecution is one of the internationally recognized grounds the United States considers in granting asylum from Iran. As Farahi entered the courthouse, he saw four men from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They wore body armor and had guns holstered at their sides. All followed Farahi from the security checkpoint on the ground level to the third-floor courtroom of Judge Carey Holliday. Farahi's attorney at the time, Mildred Morgado, spoke with the ICE agents and then asked to talk to Farahi in private. "They have a file with evidence that you're supporting or are involved in terrorist groups," Farahi recalls Morgado telling him. (Morgado did not return repeated calls seeking comment.) Farahi says the ICE agents gave him an ultimatum: Drop the asylum case and leave the United States voluntarily, or be charged as a terrorist. He was afraid. Indeed, luck wasn't on Farahi's side when drawing a judge for his asylum claim. Appointed to the immigration court in October 2006 by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Holliday was a Louisiana Republican who had quickly earned a reputation for being tough on immigrants in Florida. In one case, he declined to hear arguments from an Ecuadorian couple who alleged they were targeted for deportation because their daughter, Miami Dade College student Gabby Pacheco, was a well-known activist for immigration reform. "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones," Holliday wrote. (The judge resigned this past January, after the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General found Bush administration officials had illegally considered political affiliation when selecting judicial candidates for immigration court.) So Farahi told Judge Holliday he would voluntarily leave the country within 30 days. Although Farahi's Iranian passport was expired — a bureaucratic problem that should have given him more time to consider the government's threat — Judge Holliday granted the order of voluntary departure. Soon, Farahi realized the government's claim that it would prosecute him as a terrorist was a bluff — nothing more than leverage to coerce him into becoming an informant. To this day, the government has not shared with Farahi or his attorney any information about this professed evidence, and he has not been charged with a crime. "If they have something on Foad, they should make it public. They haven't done that," says Sunshine, the Barry University theology professor. "They are intimidating and bullying, and I resent that type of behavior being paid for by my tax dollars." Farahi's assertion that the government is trying to coerce him to become an informant cannot be verified independently because the FBI won't comment on his case. "It is a matter of policy that we do not confirm or deny who we have asked to be a source," says Miami FBI Special Agent Judy Orihuela. But similar claims from other would-be informants seem to support Farahi's assertion. In November 2005, for example, immigration officials questioned Yassine Ouassif, a 24-year-old Moroccan with a green card, as he crossed into New York from Canada. The officials confiscated his green card and instructed him to meet an FBI agent in Oakland, California. The bureau's offer: Become an informant or be deported. Ouassif refused to spy and won his deportation case with the help of National Legal Sanctuary for Community Advancement, a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights on behalf of Muslims and immigrants from the Middle East and South Asia. The government employed a similarly tough tactic against Tarek Mehanna, a 26-year-old U.S. citizen living in Sudbury, Massachusetts. After FBI agents failed to persuade Mehanna to spy, the government charged him with making a false statement. Prosecutors allege Mehanna told FBI agents a suspect was in Egypt when he knew that person was in Somalia. Mehanna is awaiting trial, and his attorney has alleged the prosecution is a form of revenge for Mehanna's unwillingness to be an informant. Among more recent cases is that of Ahmadullah Sais Niazi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan. Charged with making a false statement to obtain citizenship, he alleged in a February detention hearing in Orange County, California, that he was arrested and indicted for refusing to be an informant. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) suspects there are hundreds of similar cases in which the government has used deportation or criminal charges to force cooperation from informants. Most of these cases will never be made public. What's more, the FBI is now working under guidelines, approved in December 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, that allow agents to consider religion and ethnic background when launching undercover investigations. Today, many Muslims in the United States simply assume informants are working inside their mosques. "This is becoming increasingly common," says Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's national communications director. "Law enforcement authorities seek to use some vulnerability of the individual, whether it be business, immigration, or personal, to try to gain some sort of informant status. "The issue is law enforcement's basic understanding of the community. Is it one that law enforcement needs to have blanket suspicion toward or is it... well integrated into our multi-faith nation and wants to preserve public safety as well as civil liberties?" ---------- Ira Kurzban's law office in Miami is a mile from the alfresco restaurants of Coconut Grove. On a hot day in late August, Kurzban wears a white guayabera and shows no concern for the disheveled gray hairs on the sides of his balding head. He leans forward at his desk, having been asked a question about Farahi. "He's an imam in his mosque," Kurzban says as he throws his hands in the air in a sort of protest. "He's basically, you know, the rabbi." Kurzban has become a well-known advocate for immigrants' rights, having argued more immigration-related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than any of his peers. He is also on the board of directors of Immigrants' List, the first political action committee in Washington, D.C., established to support candidates who endorse immigration reform. Farahi, desperate not to leave the country but frightened after government agents threatened to charge him as a terrorist, hired Kurzban to take his case on appeal. In November 2007, Kurzban asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to throw out Farahi's voluntary departure order and reopen his political asylum case, arguing the imam was illegally intimidated. The board denied the request, so Kurzban petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Farahi's order of voluntary departure has been stayed. For now, the legal battle makes Farahi a kind of no-land's man. He no longer has an official immigration status in the United States, and in asking for political asylum, he has rejected his Iranian citizenship. As he was in Kuwait, Farahi is home in a land that could expel him at any time. "I think the real issue is, does the government have the right to pressure people... to make them informants?" Kurzban says. "It's clearly modus operandi of the FBI to (a) recruit people who are going to be informants and (b) to use whatever leverage they can." A few weeks later, in North Miami Beach, Ramadan is nearing its end. For Farahi, this year's religious festival marks nearly five years since the FBI first asked him to be an informant. "I'm not bitter about what has happened," the imam insists. Dressed in khaki pants and a white button-down shirt, he walks barefoot through the mosque as members begin to arrange food on folding banquet tables. After sundown, everyone will eat and drink together to break the fast. Farahi is distracted as he waves at attendees and hugs others entering the mosque. "I'm not bitter," he repeats after a few moments. "I wouldn't say I'm bitter at all. But I'm tired. I want to live my life in this country. I want to stay here. That's all." Farahi stops and waves to another man. The imam shakes his head quickly. "I wish the case would be over," he says. "I just wish I could stay here." Research for this story was supported in part by a grant from Political Research Associates, with funding from the Atlantic Philanthropies.

Somalis also need to form an Ad Hoc Human Rights committee to file a legal case for Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes of the 20 year old Somali Civil War. Who should stand trial for crimes against humanity committed in Somalia? 1. Those responsible or who have given a tacit approval for the following: A. Destruction of the Infrastructure right after the departure of late Dictator Siad Barre. B. Warlords who commanded thugs who maimed, raped and killed thousands of innocent civilians along clan lines (Ethnic Cleansing). C. Warlords who took bribe money from Foreign governments and companies to dump their nuclear waste on Somali coasts for the past 16 years. D. All Foreign forces who killed civilians on Somali soil indiscriminately since 1993 E. All TFG Presidents and their Prime Ministers, Ministers and Parliament Members who approved Ethiopian, Ugandan and Burundi AMISOM to shell civilian areas or did not condemn the killing of the innocent civilians in populated areas. Nur

War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity And Genocide In Iraq Legal Case Filed Against 4 U.S. Presidents and 4 UK Prime Ministers By The Brussels Tribunal October 08, 2009 "ICH" -- MADRID: Today the Spanish Senate, acting to confirm a decision already taken under pressure from powerful governments accused of grave crimes, will limit Spain’s laws of universal jurisdiction. Yesterday, ahead of the change of law, a legal case was filed at the Audiencia Nacional against four United States presidents and four United Kingdom prime ministers for commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq. This case, naming George H W Bush, William J Clinton, George W Bush, Barack H Obama, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown, is brought by Iraqis and others who stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people and in defense of their rights and international law. Iraq: 19 years of intended destruction The intended destruction — or genocide — of Iraq as a state and nation has been ongoing for 19 years, combining the imposition of the most draconian sanctions regime ever designed and that led to 1.5 million Iraqi deaths, including 500,000 children, with a war of aggression that led to the violent deaths of over one million more. * Destroying Iraq included the purposeful targeting of its water and sanitation system, attacking the health of the civilian population. Since 1990, thousands of tons of depleted uranium have been dropped on Iraq, leading in some places to a 600 per cent rise in cancer and leukaemia cases, especially among children. In both the first Gulf War and “Shock and Awe” in 2003, an air campaign that openly threatened “total destruction”, waves of disproportionate bombing made no distinction between military and civilian targets, with schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, and historical sites all destroyed. * Destroying Iraq included promoting, funding and organizing sectarian and ethnic groups bent on dividing Iraq into three or more sectarian or ethnic entities, backed by armed militias that would terrorize the Iraqi people. Since 2003, some 4.7 million Iraqis — one fifth of the population — have been forcibly displaced. Under occupation, kidnappings, killings, extortion and mutilation became endemic, targeting men, women and even children and the elderly. * Destroying Iraq included purposefully dismantling the state by refusing to stop or stem or by instigating mass looting, and by engaging in ideological persecution, entailing “manhunting”, extrajudicial assassinations, mass imprisonment and torture, of Baathists, the entire educated class of the state apparatus, religious and linguistic minorities and Arab Sunnis, resulting in the total collapse of all public services and other economic functions and promoting civil strife and systematic corruption. * In parallel, Iraq’s rich heritage and unique cultural and archaeological patrimony has been wantonly destroyed. In order to render Iraq dependent on US and UK strategic designs, successive US and UK governments have attempted to partition Iraq and to establish by military force a pro-occupation Iraqi government and political system. They have promoted and engaged in the massive plunder of Iraqi natural resources, attempting to privatize this property and wealth of the Iraqi nation. Humanity at stake This is but the barest summary of the horrors Iraq has endured, based on lies that nobody but cowed governments and complicit media believed. In 2003, millions worldwide were mobilized in opposition to US/UK plans. In going ahead, the US and UK launched an illegal war of aggression. Accountability has not been established. The persons named in this case have each played a key role in Iraq’s intended destruction. They instigated, supported, condoned, rationalized, executed and/or perpetuated or excused this destruction based on lies and narrow strategic and economic interests, and against the will of their own people. Allowing those responsible to escape accountability means such actions could be repeated elsewhere. It is imperative now to establish accountability for US and UK war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Iraq because: Every Iraqi victim deserves justice. Everyone responsible should be accountable. We are before immoral and unlawful acts, contrary to the basis on which the international order of state sovereignty and peace and security rests. Whereas the official international justice system is closed before the suffering of those that imperialism makes a target, through this case we try to open a channel whereby the conscience of humanity can express its solidarity with justice for victims of imperial crimes. Ad Hoc Committee For Justice For Iraq Press contacts: Hana Al Bayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal 34 657 52 70 77 or +20 10 027 7964 (English and French) hanaalbayaty@gmail.com Dr Ian Douglas, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal, coordinator, International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq +20 12 167 1660 (English) iandouglas@USgenocide.org Amanda Nuredin, +34 657 52 70 77 (Spanish) justiciaparairak@gmail. Abdul Ilah Albayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal +33 471 461 197 (Arabic) albayaty_abdul@hotmail.com Web: www.brusselstribunal.org www.USgenocide.org www.twitter.com/USgenocide www.facebook.com/USgenocide

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 US should help itself first By Walter Rogers, Christian Science Monitor The assessment of the war in Afghanistan from the top US general there is grim. Without more troops, Stanley McChrystal warned in a report that was leaked recently, "The conflict will likely result in failure." His candour should be applauded. It gives the US President Barack Obama and the American public - nearly half of whom now oppose the war there - an opportunity to ask themselves how we are going to save Afghanistan when we have not figured out how to engage in successful nation-building at home. There's no question Americans need it. Thirty per cent of American pupils drop out before finishing high school. The country's border with Mexico is awash in drugs and violence. Mexican and Russian mafias have strong criminal footholds in American cities. Some of the US Rust Belt cities have unemployment levels on par with Third World countries. Michigan, once America's industrial heart, is on government life support. California, once the country's dynamo, is near bankruptcy. Taking on these tough challenges will require US leaders, both Democrat and Republican, to relinquish the idea they can remake much of the world in America's image and likeness. Giving up that idea is hard to do in Washington, even for presidents. It requires them to defy powerful pressure. Obama should recall that in 1962 president John Kennedy instinctively resisted Defence and State Department pressure to send more troops to Vietnam. President Johnson was also wary of a troop buildup in Vietnam, but he fell prey to his own fears that Republicans would accuse him of being soft on communism if he flinched in the face of a festering Viet Cong insurgency. America has a poor record of nation-building abroad. The George H.W. Bush administration and Clinton White House failed in Somalia. The most recent Bush administration bungled it in Iraq, where Iraqis continue to blow one another up now that Americans are increasingly out of reach as targets. And now, bright as he is, Obama is showing us he learned next to nothing from the nine-year Soviet attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan that helped hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not long ago, a friend, a high Canadian government official, met with his Chinese government counterparts. The discussion turned to the subject of the United States. My Canadian friend told me that the Chinese delegate coolly observed, "We always expected the American empire to collapse, but we had no idea it would collapse so quickly." The Pentagon and the US military command in Afghanistan now find themselves caught in a trap inadvertently set by their own politicians. The US military speaks of winning the hearts and minds of Afghans when it's almost certainly the case that the Americans will always be seen as 'infidel outsiders' occupying a Muslim country, just as the Russians were seen on the same real estate in the l980s. Even if the Obama administration were to send half a million troops, the results would be little different. Just as the Communist Vietnamese enjoyed havens in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam, so the Taliban and the rabidly anti-American Islamists in Afghanistan would enjoy similar sanctuaries in Pakistan and Iran. Few US politicians have had the courage to tell the public that Afghanistan has a corrupt, tribal government, too weak to go it alone without US troops. Obama unwisely made Afghanistan his problem by escalating, rather than winding down, US involvement upon taking office. Now, the US is committed to policing it, creating a modern infrastructure out of a medieval society, while providing Afghans security and jobs. How does this count as an intelligent investment when the administration is struggling to do the same thing in the US? American political leaders have a moral obligation to repair their own republic before they try to re-engineer Afghanistan. Nation-building at home will be at least as challenging as in Iraq or Afghanistan and far more important. A prerequisite for this domestic ­nation-building is a spirit of goodwill with civil discourse that scorns rabid political posturing. Members of Congress must see themselves as colleagues, not enemies, and the public must not let buffoons with megaphones shape the debate at the expense of serious-minded observers. No matter how great their material wealth, democratic nations cannot long survive, let alone mend themselves, without a spirit of public goodwill in the body politic. The run-up to the American Civil War demonstrated this. Today, a similar ideological malice stalks the land. It is arguably more destructive than any terrorist threat spawned in Afghanistan. And this malevolent public rancour needs to be addressed with far greater urgency than Afghanistan, which is probably too broken to fix. Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN.

Castro bro. In Palestine, we have a situation in which Israel has blatantly breached the Geneva convention, war crimes have been committed with support of US and EU and in full view of the Arab world, yet it took an honest Jewish Judge to call it a war crime, while the head of the "Palestinian Authority" Mr. Abbas deflects the war crimes allegations to cover his own rear end. It is said that Abbas has asked Israel to continue the siege and bombardment of Gaza to get rid of his Hamas competitors. The Gazans stood firm, and the attempt to force them to submission failed. They chose to die on their feet and not to live on their knees!. The parallel here is a similar enemy installed government in Somalia, the so called TFG whose past Warlord President Abdullahi Yusuf and Geddi, and current Sheikh Sharif and Sharmarke who have routinely allowed Burunudi and Ugandan AMISOM Mercenaries in cold blood to use Battle Grade Shelling on the Civilian populated Market of Bakara for avenging the attacks by the armed resistance groups, so in order to silence the resistance, AMISOM with the tacit approval of the TFG targets the civilians. If investigated by Mr. Goldstone, it will undoubtedly prove to be a similar war crime if not worse. One Lesson we can learn from the Palestinian experience is that truth can even come from an unlikely source, like an Ethiopian or a Ugandan Judge, who might show that war crimes have been committed in Somalia by the very people we are asked to accept as TFG Government! Another lesson is that the political circus cage of the TFG is infested with warlords whose war crime resumes competes with that of the Hutu in Rwanda and the Sebs in Bosnia. In that Circus parliament, we have more than a dozen war criminal clowns whose hands are freshly stained with 16 years of contract assassinations, rape of the nation by allowing the dumping of toxic waste on Somali coasts and the destruction of fauna and flora, who have since been anointed by Mullah Bush and his later day disciples as friends of the free world and allies against terrorism. Nur

Lessons Somalis can learn from Palestinians! The following article shows how leadership changes over time. The contrast between King Abdullah and Abbas is similar to the contrast behween Sayyid Muhammad Abdullah Hassan and Sheikh Sharif. Enjoy the article. Another PA Betrayal By Khalid Amayreh October 06, 2009 "IHC" -- The Palestinian Authority (PA) decision to defer until March a vote on the “Goldstone report” at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva constitutes a huge betrayal of Palestinian people. Likewise, the stuuupid and disgraceful feat immensely serves the Israeli goal of covering up the Nazi-like crimes the Israeli occupation army committed during its manifestly criminal war on the Gaza Strip nine months ago. Endorsement of the report by UNHRC would probably have paved the way for the prosecution of Israeli war criminals before the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The PA has given a plethora of mostly mendacious pretexts to justify the scandalous act which numerous Palestinians, ordinary people as well as intellectuals, have described as an expression of national treason. To be sure, the Palestinians had on their side a solid majority of 33-35 member-states out of the 47-member council, which means the Goldstone commission report could have been easily endorsed by the UNHRC and referred to ICC or ICJ. Hence, the only real interpretation of the PA decision to delay a vote on the report is that the Ramallah regime wanted only to appease Israel and the Obama administration irrespective of the disastrous effects and ramifications on the Palestinian cause, especially on the unwept victims of Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Well, if Israel can get away with murdering 1300 Palestinians and utterly destroying half of Gaza, the next holocaust would probably assume European proportions. After all, the world can’t be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves. Prior to the decision, there were reports that President Obama personally intervened behind the scenes, asking the PA leadership to stop pushing for the endorsement of the report since according to him doing so would undermine “diplomatic efforts.” Similarly, another report suggested that the PA had reached a deal with Israel whereby the apartheid Zionist regime agreed to license a business venture partially owned by wealthy businessmen linked to the PA in return for the latter agreeing to defer discussion of the Goldstone report at the UNHRC. The PA ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khreishi, was quoted as saying that the Palestinian leadership was interested in a “compromise text.” “It will help us explain to the Israelis that the international community is with the Palestinians to achieve their hopes and dreams.” What a stuuupidity! After more than 42 years of a criminal military occupation, do we still have to explain our suffering to the Israelis? Does Mr. Khreishi really think that all the Israelis needed to desist from their Nazi-like crimes against our people was just a “convincing explanation”? Does the PLO ambassador think a “compromise text” would make the despicable thugs and war criminals in Tel Aviv reconsider their criminal approach vis-à-vis the Palestinians? And what does a “compromise text” mean anyway? Did Israel not commit war crimes and crimes against humanity knowingly, willfully and deliberately against innocent people in Gaza? Didn’t Israel rain death, using state-of-the-art of the American technology of death, on unprotected civilian neighborhoods, killing and maiming thousands of innocent men, women and children? Didn’t Israel rain white phosphorous on large parts of Gaza, incinerating innocent life all over the coastal territory? Didn’t Israel knowingly and deliberately rain bombs from high altitudes on homes, mosques, colleges, hospitals and schools all over Gaza? So, how could any human being with any semblance of honesty and morality try to make these crimes look less nefarious and less satanic by agreeing to adopting a “compromise text”? Of all people in the world, we Palestinians must call the spade a spade especially when we see that proverbial spade in the hands of our grave diggers, tormentors and child killers. The Judeo-Nazi army, navy and air force murdered our people en mass in Gaza and the West Bank. They committed their horrendous crimes in broad daylight and in full view of the entire world. There were no extenuating circumstances or controversial accounts of what really happened. The so-called “Qassam rockets” are largely a red-herring and shouldn’t be used in the same phrase with the horrendous Israeli machine of death since the enormity and deadliness in both cases are totally incomparable. And above all, the person who prepared the report, Richard Goldstone, is a Jew, actually a Zionist Jew, who would never overplay and exaggerate these war crimes against a virtually completely unprotected people whose very physical survival has always depended and continues to depend on the good will of the international community. Hence, the Palestinian people, the longest-lasting victims of genocidal racism, and the entire free world around us would like to know what is it that makes the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and its disoriented ambassador in Geneva cringe so submissively in the face of Zionist pressure? Don’t you people have any modicum of honor and national dignity? After all, we are talking about real crimes and hundreds of children mercilessly murdered by the army of these thuggish Zionist spokespersons who are now shamelessly bragging about swaying the PA ambassador into helping the Israeli propaganda cause. Nevertheless, it is probably unfair to pin all the blame on Khreishi, a mere functionary who had to heed the ****** instructions from Ramallah. True, Khreishi should have resigned rather than be part to an ignominious act of national betrayal. But the ultimate villain is, of course, the Palestinian judenrat in Ramallah which has become inured to sacrificing Palestinian national interests for the sake of appeasing Israel and pleasing the Obama administration in the hope of getting a “payoff” of some kind. Interestingly, however, the “payoff” given to the PA that we have seen so far is in the form of more Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, more Jewish provocations at the Al-Aqsa Mosque esplanade, and more Jewish violence and terror against unprotected Palestinian citizens in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As to the Obama administration, It, too, has been “rewarding” the PA for its perfidy and betrayal of its own people by turning a blind eye to Israeli settlement expansion and by insisting that the PA resume talks with the arrogant government of Benyamin Netanyahu without any preconditions. Well, people who don’t respect themselves don’t deserve respect from others. More over, an authority that torments, tortures and kills its own citizens in order to please the Israeli occupier and obtain from it a certificate of good conduct is utterly unqualified to be a true representative of the Palestinian people. Finally, it is probably safe to assume that the PA dreads a thorough discussion of the Goldstone report as much as Israel does. According to certain sources, the PA had consistently urged Israel to pursue the criminal war on the Gaza Strip to the end. Israel is also believed to possess damning evidence showing some PA officials pleading with Israel to keep up the war on Gaza in order to crush Hamas. Hence, it is highly likely that the PA has found itself in an exceedingly embarrassing situation, which explains why it doesn’t want to see a public discussion of the Goldstone report take place anytime soon as this would reveal many shocking and embarrassing secrets about PA connivance with Israel in carrying out the Nazi-like onslaught on the Gaza Strip.