Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts

Monday, May 17, 2010

‘Terror’ victims – US and India, having different enemies, should follow different strategies By Ghulam Muhammed


Monday, May 17, 2010

‘Terror’ victims – US and India, having different enemies, should follow different strategies

The announcement of a list of ‘terror’ organisations by Indian authorities openly exposes how far Indian policies are dictated by US overlords and how US ends up imposing its own way even in administrative field by insisting on dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

India had never had the need to publish any such list in the past nor has it to institutionalize a ‘war on terror’ regimen to respond to its own list of adversaries/enemies who have sapped its constructive and peace energies. The new modes operandi is unabashedly picked up from the US security and defence establishments. The commonality of names in list of the two countries will further strengthen how much India is being led through the nose by the overbearing US overlords.

US ‘war on terror’ is overlapping with ‘war on Islam’.

India has no mandate from its people to join any ‘war on Islam’. Indian administration had realised long time back, that even if an extremist Hindutva group is all for declaring an open war on Islam and Muslims, India’s integrity, security and internal peace cannot be compromised by following the uncalled for misadventure. India’s 200 million Muslims are well meshed with Indian democracy as far as it is allowed to and are peacefully integrated in its political environment. Any wholesale disturbance in this delicate balance of communal interactive equilibrium could be the first step towards the unraveling of the very Idea of India.

For the Indian public it is not a rocket science to figure out that US has its own compulsions in setting up a semi-permanent ‘War on Terror’ machinery that coincides with its hegemonical designs on Muslim world that is sitting on the largest oil reserves of the world.

India should learn and definitely has learned from its experience, as to how it had to eat humble pie and make up with Iran on more congenial terms than when it had chosen to oppose Iran at IAEA under strong open blackmailing pressures from the US.

It has now realised that the sacking of Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, who was in the forefront of negotiating with Iran the terms for gas supplies to India through Pakistan and/or through undersea pipelines was a blatant attack on India’s sovereign right to be free from such external pressures. Mani Shankar was sacked by open arm twisting by the Bush administration, who had Manmohan Singh government over the barrel with the stick and carrot negotiations leading to civil nuclear supplies agreement. In fact, nothing short of giving back the Petroleum Ministry to Mani Shankar will restore the confidence of the people in the bona-fide of their Prime Minister to confirm that his government is not mortgaged to the US handlers.

The Jairam Ramesh outburst over a vested interest coterie in Indian government and the ruling coalition partner, Indian National Congress, unreasonably hindering investments from China, is still fresh in public arena. It should be added for good measure that the same vested interest coterie is similarly against any investment from Arab investors, who are not only our major oil suppliers at present but could be for long term foreseeable future too. Indian government has hidden policies unknown to and uncleared by Indian public to close all investment opportunities to the US clique, to the exclusion of other more soft term investors. India should debate openly as to the clear benefit of opening Indian economy to different investors to hedge our future from vagaries of economic turmoil in western economies. It will give us more freedom to write our own future economic plans without being heavily entangled to the US and its dependants. Needless to add how our economy’s financial control parameters had kept us less prone to the recessionary upheaval that was direct result of uncontrolled financial trickery by Wall Street gnomes.

The recent arrest of an innocent Imam from Emirate flight  taking off from New Delhi airport, on mere unsubstantiated suspicion by a US based NRI lady is clear proof how US media and security propaganda against Muslims is being reflected in Indian security, media and general public’s own profiling of Indian Muslims.

P. Chidambaram, India Home Minister’s instant intervention in ordering release of the Imam, shows how India is still independent in assessment of the profiling of its own terror suspect and is not needlessly and blindly following US dictates.

It is unimaginable that US President Obama, generally painted as proto-Muslim, would have reached out publicly and intervened to save any such innocent Muslim arrested in the State, over such flimsy pretext of Muslim profiling. News of such unwarranted arrests all over US are becoming very common and no human rights group has taken cudgels in earnest against such spurious profiling and demonizing of Muslims in the US that borders on hate crime by US authorities.

Indian authority should be rightly more vigilant to protect their freedom being eroded by their overbearing strategic partner, the USA.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai


Saturday, January 2, 2010

Comments posted on THE WASHINGTON POST website over Charles Krauthammer's article: A terrorist war Obama has denied

Comments posted on THE WASHINGTON POST website over Charles Krauthammer's article: 



Your Comments On...

A terrorist war Obama has denied

The administration's response to terrorism has been incompetent and incomprehensible.
 - 

 By Charles Krauthammer

 
Comments
Abdulmuttallab may be used by agencies to whip up the flagging interest in war on terror. His kid glove treatment with foreknowledge of all his moves, point to a controlled experiment to hoodwink people that Al Qaida is still active. If Al Qaida is active, there are reasons to believe that US agencies have handlers manipulating some of its moves. People should be wary of Neo-cons like Krauthammer, who still have plants in US administration and committed to build up a scenario of world wide terror to continue to be in business.
1/3/2010 12:54:00 AM





Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home

A terrorist war Obama has denied

President Obama makes a statement Monday on the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day.
President Obama makes a statement Monday on the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day. (Kent Nishimura/getty Images)
  Enlarge Photo    
TOOLBOX
COMMENT 
1213 Comments  |  View All » 
POST A COMMENT
Your washingtonpost.com User ID,ghulammuhammed3, will be displayed with your comment.

WHO'S BLOGGING
Friday, January 1, 2010
Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.
Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."
And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood, Tex., shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate the mass murder there with Nidal Hasan's Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the would-be bomber acted alone.
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."
Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.
This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.
This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.
The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.
The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist[s]."
A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.
Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com