Friday, April 1, 2011

Fwd: [bangla-vision] Expose of Security Council Resolution 1973, authorizing war against Libya



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mohammad Basirul Haq Sinha <mohammad_b_haq@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Expose of Security Council Resolution 1973, authorizing war against Libya

 



Mohammad Basir-ul Haq Sinha
Journalist,
Dhaka,Bangla Desh

E mail:mohammad_b_haq@yahoo.co.uk

--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Bangla Vision <banglavision@maktoob.com> wrote:

From: Bangla Vision <banglavision@maktoob.com>
Subject: Fwd: Expose of Security Council Resolution 1973, authorizing war against Libya
To: "Sina 1" <mohammad_b_haq@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "Gafur Mian" <gofurmiah@yahoo.com>, "pop ciprian-dorel" <pop.dorel.ciprian@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 9:16

This knowledgeable and documented article was posted at taz.de at:

 

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/30/un_march_17_meeting_res1973/

 

 

UN Security Council March 17 Meeting to Authorize Bombing of Libya all Smoke and Mirrors

                            by Ronda Hauben (30.03.2011)

 

Part I

 

Watching the meeting of the Security Council on the evening of March 17, one could only wonder in disbelief. (1) Here the 15 member states of the Security Council, by a vote of 10 in favor and none opposed, with five abstentions, passed Security Council Resolution 1973.(2) This resolution authorized a foreign military assault on a sovereign nation. The Security Council gave the ok to Western former colonial powers and the US to carry out a military campaign including bombing and missile strikes against another UN member nation.. How did the members of the Council justify this authorization of an attack on Libya? The "pretext", the term used by the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, 4 days later, was that the aggression was for "the protection of the civilians."

 

The source of the disbelief I felt sitting and watching Thursday's meetings was that not only did Security Council members vote for, or support by their abstentions, the bombing of a UN member nation, but also that those members who spoke, 14 of them, presented a false portrayal of what was happening in Libya as the basis for their support for the resolution.

 

The false narrative they conjured up was that their military action was for the protection of unarmed civilians who were peacefully protesting for their rights. What is happening in Libya, however, is an armed insurrection against the government. The insurrection is being led by former Libyan government officials who defected and joined with other opposition forces. The Security Council resolution was crafted to provide foreign military intervention to aid this armed insurrection by attacking the military forces of the Libyan government along with other sites and installations.

 

Why had the Security Council so falsified the ongoing military assault against Libya?

 

The statement by the Deputy Ambassador to the UN for India, Manjeev Singh Puri, offered a clue to help unravel this puzzle.

 

Welcoming the appointment by the UN Secretary General of an envoy to Libya, Deputy Ambassador Puri said, "However, we have not had the benefit of his report or even a report from the Secretariat or his assessment as yet. That would have given us an objective analysis of the situation on the ground….The Council has today adopted a resolution that authorizes far-reaching measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, with relatively little credible information on the situation on the ground in Libya…."

 

A similar criticism of the lack of credible evidence had been raised when the UN General Assembly voted to remove Libya from its seat on the Human Rights Council. (3) There was no impartial report verifying the claims made against the Libyan government by the defectors and the armed opposition sources and biased news media . Instead these same claims were given prominence in Security Council decisions and in the continued reports of much of the English language media like the BBC, English language Aljazeera and other mainstream media news programs.

 

The voices of netizens discussing the Libyan conflict, however, have demonstrated that it is not difficult to have a more accurate grasp of what is happening in Libya.

 

Some examples of comments in online discussions give a sample of some sentiments of netizens (4):

 

"Armed civilians or ununiformed fighters have no place being supported or protected by our air power. They carry a gun and get targeted that is their look out, not our job to hit the other side."

JamesStGeorge

22 March 2011

 

"The thing is the rebels are 'civilians' when ever it suits us."

llundiel

23 March 2011

 

"Of course once you start bombing, there will clearly be plenty of collateral damage.

This then makes a complete mockery of the stated purpose of the intervention, to save innocent civilians."

contractor000

23 March 2011

 

"Yes tanks are not planes! Or in the air flying. The civilian protection has no place extending to armed rebels, they are not civilians."

CockfingersMcGee

23 March 2011 3:52PM

 

"So we are supposed to accept this scenario that the Military aggression against Libya is to do with protecting the protesters, the revolution, innocent civilians, the rebels etc. This sounds very reminiscent of attacking Iraq because of WMD."

communismlives

22 March 2011 10:50PM

 

There are earlier online discussions and articles challenging the false portrayal of the conflict in Libya as unarmed civilians protesting for their

rights.(5)

 

One of the narratives considered by many netizens is that there has been an insurrectionary movement against the Libyan government. It is this military insurrection that the UN Security Council is supporting using the false pretext that foreign military intervention into Libya is to provide protection for unarmed peaceful civilian protest. Actually, instead the reality is that the Security Council has chosen to join the military attack on the Libyan government, thereby jeopardizing the lives of unarmed civilians in Libya.

 

Several online sites feature articles or the reprint of articles documenting how Libyan government officials defected and conspired with other opposition forces and foreign intelligence officials to carry out an insurrection against the Libyan government.(6)

 

While some netizens support the armed insurrection, others oppose foreign intervention in the internal affairs of Libya. The pretense that the conflict in Libya is about the Libyan government's mistreatment of peaceful civilian protest has been shattered on the Internet and in the battlefields of Libya.

But at the UN Security Council the false narrative is alive and well and being used to bring untold foreign military might to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya.

 

Reviewing the events of the Security Council meeting at 6 pm on March 17 can be instructive.

 

Leading off the statements at the meeting was French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe who spoke before the vote. He described the situation in Libya, explaining, "Throughout the country, violence against the civilian population has only increased….We must not give free rein to warmongers; we must not abandon civilian populations, the victims of brutal repression, to their fate…."

 

In Juppe's statement, there is no mention of an armed insurrection seeking to overthrow the Libyan government or that Security Council Resolution 1973 had been crafted to bring the military might of the Western powers into open support for the armed insurrection. Instead the picture Juppe portrays is one of helpless civilians who are under threat of massacre by a barbaric government.

 

Juppe made the only statement before the vote. After the vote, 13 nations offered statements of explanation of their active (by voting for) or passive (by abstaining) support for the resolution.

 

In the first statement after the vote, the Lebanese Ambassador, Nawaf Salam, denounced what he called, "the violent acts and atrocious crimes being carried out by Libyan authorities against their people." "The resolution", he said, "is aimed at protecting Libyan civilians." He offered no proof to support such accusations.

 

The British Ambassador, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, accused the Libyan regime of preparing a violent assault on a city of one million people. Again no proof was offered to support his accusation. Instead merely the claim the resolution is "to protect civilian and civilian populated areas under threat of attack."

There was no mention in his statement of the armed insurrectionary forces in areas of Libya waging a battle against the Libyan government or that there could be civilians in Libya who do not support the insurrection and who do not want to see foreign forces determine the fate of their government or what government they will have.

 

Only when Germany spoke to explain why it abstained, did one hear that there is an "Interim Transitional National Council" that Germany regards as an important interlocutor.

 

The German Ambassador, Peter Wittig, said that Germany had "decided not to support a military option." But Germany did not vote against the resolution nor mention that the underlying issue is the Security Council taking the side of an armed insurrection against the government of Libya, and that the claim of support for civilians was but, as Putin saw it, almost a week later, "a pretext."

 

The US Ambassador, Susan Rice, in her turn repeated that the resolution's purpose is "to protect innocent civilians."

 

Only when the Council heard from India's Deputy Ambassador, was there the acknowledgment of the lack of credible information to provide an objective assessment as the basis for the Council's vote. Also India's Deputy Ambassador referred to a plan by the African Union to send "a high-level panel to Libya to make serious efforts for a peaceful end to the crisis there." It was, however, impossible for the African Union high level panel to go as planned because of the foreign bombing and military assault that the Resolution had thrust on Libya.

 

Though stressing the need for "political efforts…to address the situation,"

India abstained rather than voting against the resolution.

 

Another abstention was cast by Ambassador Maria Luiza Riberio Viotti of Brazil.

She explained that the government of Brazil had publicly condemned the use of violence against "unarmed demonstrators….." What that had to do with the armed insurrection against the Libyan government she failed to explain. Instead the image her statement portrayed could have been that of the nonviolent struggle in Egypt of unarmed civilians demonstrating for political rights. Her statement was not a statement that matched the reality in Libya.

 

She did question paragraph 4 of the resolution as to whether it "will lead to the realization of our common objective the immediate end to violence and the protection of civilians."(6) But if the resolution had been crafted to protect an armed rebellion against the Libyan government then her statement only contributed to the smoke and mirrors being spread around the Security Council chambers. The provisions of the UN charter require an effort to use peaceful means to settle conflicts that endanger international peace and security. Also the charter supports the obligation to respect the sovereignty of member states. No Security Council member explained how the military actions they were authorizing did not violate any of the obligations of the Charter. (7)

 

The meeting continued with others speaking. When Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of the Russian Federation, made his statement, he complained about departures from Security Council practices by those drafting the resolution, and their failure to answer questions posed by other members of the Council. "Furthermore," said Churkin, "the draft was morphing before our very eyes…. Provisions were introduced into the text that could potentially open the door to large-scale military intervention."

 

Ambassador Churkin said he unsuccessfully tried to submit an alternative draft resolution on March 16 calling for a ceasefire and backing the efforts of the Special Envoy for the Secretary General to Libya, the investigation of what is happening in Libya by the Human Rights Council, and the African Union endeavors to achieve a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Libya.

 

But nowhere did he condemn that the resolution was to support armed fighters against the Libyan government, using as a pretext the claim that it was created to defend nonviolent protesting civilians. Nor did he explain why his government was supporting the resolution despite the problems he had pointed out, by not voting against it and thus failing to use its veto.

 

Of the three African members of the Security Council, one did not explain its vote in favor of the resolution (Gabon), one spoke of "the need to protect civilians under attack" (Nigeria) and the other African member referred to "concern with the deteriorating political and humanitarian situation in Libya which is fast becoming a full-blown civil war ."(South Africa).

 

Baso Sangqu, the South African Ambassador to the UN, said that South Africa commended, "the decision of the African Union Peace and Security Council to dispatch an ad hoc high-level committee to Libya" to work toward a political solution to the conflict. His statement also portrayed the false image that the Security Council had passed the resolution to protect "the lives of defenseless civilians….." South Africa, too, helped to hide that the essence of SC resolution 1973 was to give foreign military support to the armed rebellion against Libya.

 

South Africa was one of the five nations who had agreed to send a high level delegation on behalf of the African Union to Libya to negotiate a political solution. South Africa voted in favor of SC Resolution 1973, acting in sharp contrast to the decision of the African Union to reject any foreign military action and to support a political resolution to the crisis. A Security Council resolution requires nine votes in favor to pass. Because five other Security Council members had abstained, there were only 10 members who could vote in favor of the resolution. If only 2 of the African nations had abstained, the resolution would have gotten only 8 votes, one short of the 9 votes needed to be approved. So the votes of the African Union members on the Security Council were decisive in passing a resolution that was in sharp contradiction with the decision of the African Union on the course of action it should take about the situation in Libya.

 

Finally at the end of the meeting, the Chinese Ambassador to the UN, Li Baodong explained China's vote. China abstained, he said, because it "attaches great importance to the position by the 22-member Arab League on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya." He also said that China attached, "great importance to the position of African countries and the African Union. These two organization had disagreed in their approach to the conflict in Libya. Instead of China taking the responsibility to determine whether there was a good reason to veto the resolution given two such conflicting decisions from the relevant regional organizations, China supported the resolution by abstaining.

 

The resolution China supported with its abstention had "sidelined" the African Union's effort to work for a political solution, according to John Ping the Secretary General of the African Union.(8) This process was to start on March

21 with a delegation to Libya.

 

The question I was left with after the Security Council meeting on March 17 which passed Resolution 1973, was: How could 15 Ambassadors from diverse nations all portray the reality in Libya by this same false narrative?

 

During the Bush and Blair campaign against Iraq in 2003, the UN Security Council did not vote to authorize the US and British invasion. At the time, sufficient Security Council members opposed this action by the Security Council to prevent such a vote from taking place.

 

On March 17, however, all 15 members voted for, or at least supported by an abstention, an undefined and unfettered military action by undefined forces, including a bombing campaign against Libya. Along with supporting the resolution by a vote for or abstaining, these 15 member nations acted to misrepresent the act of aggression they were authorizing.

 

Searching for an understanding of what was happening in Libya, I came upon the discrepancy between the action taken by the UN Security Council and the descriptions of what was happening in Libya that were being discussed by netizens.. There were many debates online. Many netizens were concerned with the actions of the armed insurrection against the Libya government. In their discussions, and in many posts, netizens plainly stated whether they agreed or disagreed with those who were part of the armed insurrection against the Libyan government. Most netizens, however, did not create a false narrative misrepresenting armed fighters as unarmed civilians

 

Their discussions online differed substantially from the false narrative being spread by Security Council members and by news media like BBC (UK), Aljazeera

(Qatar) and much of the mainstream US media.

 

The online discussion, reports and analyses demonstrated that the mainstream news media and the Security Council no longer had the ability to monopolize how the narrative would be framed which described the crisis in Libya.

 

Part II

 

One of the many ways that the foreign intervention into the internal struggle in Libya is being justified is to call it an example of the need for putting into practice the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine.

 

This doctrine, supposedly applies to situations where violence is being directed against unarmed civilians and the government fails to protect those civilians. In Libya, there is an armed insurrection against a sovereign government and there are civilians who do not support that insurrection. It could be argued that the Libyan government is fulfilling its obligation to protect its sovereignty by fighting against the armed insurrection. Carrying out an armed insurrection against a government is not the same as nonviolent civilians peacefully protesting for their rights.

 

By breaching the sovereignty of Libya and the Libyan people with Resolution 1973, the UN Security Council has taken away the right of the Libyan people to determine their own government. The Security Council has chosen the side of the insurrection against the Libyan government, and by so doing it has violated Article 2(1) of the UN Charter that, "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

 

In a talk presented at the United Nations in 2009, Jean Bricmont, a university professor in Belgium, who has written on these issues, explained how the R2P doctrine is but a new version of the discredited doctrine of humanitarian intervention. "The very starting point of the United Nations," Bricmont explained in his talk, "was to save humankind from 'the scourge of war,' with reference to the two World Wars. This was to be done precisely by strict respect for national sovereignty, in order to prevent Great Powers from intervening militarily against weaker ones, regardless of the pretext." (9)

 

Bricmont explains that it is only the respect for sovereignty that protects the people of the small nations from the self serving interests of the great powers. "The necessary respect for national sovereignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each nation state is the people of that state whose right to replace unjust governments cannot be taken over by supposedly benevolent outsiders."

 

Why did no member of the Security Council speak up about the fact that Resolution 1973 by its attack on sovereignty is a violation of the UN Charter?

The UN charter in article 2(1)and article 2(7) upholds the sovereign equality of all member states and the principle that the charter cannot be used to authorize intervention into the internal affairs of member states. Only in cases where international peace and security is in jeopardy can the Security Council make a case for the use of Chapter 7 of the charter. Chapter 7 refers to situations involving aggression against other states or other acts which are threats to peaceful relations among nations. The Security Council made no case that any of the conditions for the use of Chapter 7 apply in the Libyan situation.

 

This is but one of the questions that is unanswered even weeks after Resolution

1973 was passed. Other questions raised by the March 17 Security Council meeting include: Why did veto holding members like Russia and China go along with the resolution by abstaining? Why did no member vote against the resolution or speak up during the meeting to challenge the inconsistency between the alleged purpose to "protect unarmed civilians" and the actual purpose of the resolution, i.e. to protect the armed insurrection against the Libyan state and provide support for the insurrection by foreign military intervention. To have admitted this discrepancy, however, would have exposed that the resolution is contrary to the obligations under the UN Charter.

Whether they intended it or not, all members of the Security Council who spoke at the meeting on March 17 or who voted or abstained from the vote in support of the resolution, took part in concealing the violation of the charter represented by Resolution 1973.

 

The UN is now faced with the challenge of how to respond to the action of the Security Council members in passing Resolution 1973. The deceitful nature of the resolution has been uncovered in articles and discussions by netizens, but also occasionally in some few articles in the mainstream media (9). Also some members of the African Union have begun to speak up about the failure represented by the 3 African members of the Security Council voting in favor of the resolution, making it possible for the resolution to pass. An increasing number of nations are beginning to recognize they, too, can be subjected to similar acts of aggression as that imposed by the UN Security Council on Libya.

This is, as one African president said, an impetus for nations to increase their purchase of military weapons.(10)

 

Nations, including Indonesia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Uruguay, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Ecuador, and Nicaragua are publicly condemning the Resolution and offering to help settle the conflict in Libya by supporting dialogue between the government and those involved in the insurrection.(11)

 

In a letter to the Security Council dated March 19, Libya requested that the Security Council hold an emergency meeting on the subject of the aggression unleashed on Libya's territory and people with the Security Council action on Resolution 1973. (12) In the request, Libya stated that the resolution was not "to protect civilians as is purported but rather to strike civilian sites, economic facilities and sites belonging to the armed peoples' on Duty." The Security Council refused Libya's request for such a meeting. No member of the Security Council acted to support the request so as to make it mandatory under the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council.

 

In another letter to the Security Council dated March 24, Libya stated that it had accepted the ceasefire required by Resolution 1973, but that only set it up as the target for "military aggression led by the United States of America, France, and Britain that has resulted in casualties among defenseless civilians. This is contrary to the letter and substance of the provisions of resolution 1973 (2011) concerning the protection of civilians and the

ceasefire."(13)

 

Netizens observing the role played by the UN in authorizing the use of force against Libya have spoken out in condemnation that the UN is a party to such action.

 

"The military intervention on the part of the rebels violated the prohibition against the use of force of the UN charter and is therefore always within the reach of international law," wrote one netizen in a discussion in the German online magazine Telepolis.(14)

 

Another wrote, "The UN is no longer what it once was. Today it is an instrument for wars of aggression. This is especially true for the Security Council which has become an instrument of Insecurity."

 

The action of the UN Security Council to authorize foreign intervention in support of an armed insurrection against the government of a sovereign member state of the UN under the specious claim of "protection" of "unarmed civilians"

makes suspect all other actions of the UN Security Council. The process by which the UN deals with this violation of its charter and of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Libya will have a long term effect on the respect for the UN by people around the world and on the future of the UN itself.

 

In a late breaking development as this article is being completed, Reuters reports that in response to the refusal of the US government to grant a visa to Ali Abdussalam Treki, the Libyan designated representative to the UN after its former representatives defected, Father D'escoto Brockmann, of Nicaragua, and former President of the General Assembly, is coming to NY to represent Libya at the UN. "The Nicaraguan government said in a statement that (Father D'Escoto

Brockmann) has flown to the U.N. headquarters in New York to "support our Libyan brothers in their diplomatic battle to enforce respect for its

sovereignty."(15)

 

Notes

 

1.Transcript of Security Council meeting on March 17, 2011. S/PV.6498

 

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N11/267/18/PDF/N1126718.pdf?OpenElement

 

2.UN Security Council Resolution 1973 S/2011/1973

 

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement

 

3. "Venezuela slams U.S. at suspension of Libya from Human Rights Council", Xinhua, updated,

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-03-02/content_1903661.html

 

"A decision like this could only take place after an objective and credible investigation that confirms the veracity of the facts, " he said. "No country can be condemned a priori. We consider this decision precipitated, without first awaiting the results of the Independent International Inquiry Commission designated by the Human Rights Council."

 

4. Comments from discussion of article on Comment Is Free at the Guardian

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/libya-ceasefire-consensus-russia-china-india

 

5. See for example the website http://www.globalresearch.ca

 

6. See for example:Franco Bechi, "French Plans to Topple Gaddafi on Track Since Last November", Libero, March

 

http://www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html

 

7. See para 4 of Security Council Resolution 1973, "The resolution authorizes member states…..to take all necessary measures" without defining what these are or what the requirements or limits of these are.

 

8. John Ping in interview with journalist. Reference to be added.

 

9. Jean Bricmont, "A More Just World and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P):

How are the weak ever to be protected from the strong?

 

(Presentation to the Untied Nations General Assembly on July 23, 2009.

Available online in the Amateur Computerist Vol 19 No 1, page 24.)

 

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn19-1.pdf page 24

 

10. Henry Masaka, "Museveni blasts West over Libya attack", "New Vision", March 21, 2011.

 

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/749765

 

11. See for example, on Indonesia's action: "Indonesia urges ceasefire in Libya", The Jakarta Post, March 28, 2011.

 

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/28/ri-urges-ceasefire-libya.html

 

12 See Letter from Libya to the Security Council S/2011/161

 

13. See Letter from Libya to the Security Council S/2011/178

 

14. Telepolis. These comments are from the discussion of the article, "Re:

Bombardieren für den Frieden Re: Bombing for Peace,"18. Mنrz 2011 14:38 March

2011 14:38

 

http://www.heise.de/tp

 

"Die militنrische Intervention zugunsten der Aufstنndischen verletzt das Gewaltverbot der UN-Charta und ist deshalb immer vِlkerrechtswidrig."

 

"Leider ist die UN nicht mehr, was sie mal war.

Heute dient sie als Rechtfertigungsinstrument für Angriffskriege.

Das gilt vor allem für den UN-'Sicherheitsrat', der zum Unsicherheitsrat geworden ist."

 

15. "Nicaragua says to help Libya after a visa ban", Reuters, March 30, 2011.

 

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFN299541220110330

 

------------------------------

A version of this article appears on Netizenblog at

 

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/30/un_march_17_meeting_res1973/

 

 

 

Ardeshir Ommani, President

American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)

www.iranaifc.com

Ardeshiromm@optonline.net

Tel: 914-273-8852

 





Sponsored by:


Think you've got the freshness Karl Wolf is looking for? Close Up & Karl Wolf are creating the World's Largest* Music Video & you can star in it! Visit www.Closeuparabia.com to register & record. Plus, join the Fresh Crew at www.facebook.com/closeuparabia

* Most number of people featuring in Karl Wolf's music video
Click Here!

__._,_.___



--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

Fwd: [bangla-vision] Video: Farrakhan addresses attack on Libya, warns of catastrophe headed for US



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mohammad <mohammad_b_haq@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Video: Farrakhan addresses attack on Libya, warns of catastrophe headed for US
To: bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com


 

URL:http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_7683.shtml

Video: Farrakhan addresses attack on Libya, warns of catastrophe headed for America

By FinalCall.com News | Last updated: Mar 31, 2011 - 9:09:56 PM

Bookmark and Share

What's your opinion on this article?

Printer Friendly Page

(FinalCall.com | 03-31-2011) - The Minister called the news conference to address U.S. policy in the Middle East and military attacks on Libya. He again condemned U.S. military action against Libya and warned the president about tricks that could lead to his disgrace and ruin.

Source, FCI Broadcasting - March 31, 2011

Related news:

Africa_Libya_map_4.jpg
World class 'hypocrisy' in Libyan attacks (FCN, 03-22-2011)

Video: Farrakhan warns, advises Obama on Libya (FCN, 03-18-2011)

Farrakhan advises,warns Obama on Libya policy (FCN, 03-16-2011)

Fidel Castro on Libya and Gadhafi: Nato, war, lies and business (03-09-2011)

Libya: North African nation, leader have withstood West's attacks (FCN, 03-08-2011)

Massive Disinformation War against Libya for US/West Military Intervention? [The 4th Media] (03-01-2011)

British intelligence paid al-Qaeda cell to assassinate Col. Gadhafi,blockedLibya's Interpolarrest warrantofBin Laden (11-10-2002)

Mandela's visit to Libya raises questions about U.S. policy (FCN, 11-04-1997)

TIME, 1986 - LIBYA: Real and Illusionary Events (TIME, 10-13-1986)


__._,_.___



--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

Fwd: IIPM honors champions of humanity with Bharatiya Manavata Vikas Puraskar



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sakshi Sawhney <icpar.sakshi@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:13 PM
Subject: IIPM honors champions of humanity with Bharatiya Manavata Vikas Puraskar
To:


Hi !!

Greetings from ICPAR !

This is with reference to the Bharatiya Manavata Vikas Puraskar which took place to celebrate and salute the contributions made by various individuals ( from different walks of life), in their own capacity, in being a change agent, for the sake of social justice, human development and welfare. The recipients for this award were :
  • Dr. Kiran Bedi 
  • Mr. T N Seshan
  •  Prof. Ilina Sen
  • Dr. Binayak Sen
  •  Prakash Kaur
  • Retd Justice V R Krisha Iyer
Please find attached the press release and few images for the same.

Image Captions:

Pic 2 - Dr. Kiran Bedi receiving the award from the Chief Guest, Swami Shantatmananda Ji Maharaj and Dr. Malay Chaudhuri

Pic 3 - Prof. Ilina Sen receiving the award on behalf of her husband. Swami Ji and Dr. Malay Chaudhuri (with his wife) seen in the pic.


Please see if you can feature it. Hoping for a positive response.


--
Regards,

Sakshi Sawhney
ICPAR
9999645318




--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

Fwd: Fw: US-led airstrikes kill dozens in Libya 31 Mar 2011



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:35 PM
Subject: Fw: US-led airstrikes kill dozens in Libya 31 Mar 2011
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com


 
----- Original Message -----
From: CLG_News
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 3:22 AM
Subject: US-led airstrikes kill dozens in Libya 31 Mar 2011

Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens For Legitimate Government
31 Mar 2011
All links are here:

US-led airstrikes kill dozens in Libya 31 Mar 2011 Dozens have died from US-led airstrikes in Libya as running battles persist between revolutionary forces and government troops on the outskirts of Brega. Opposition forces have returned fire with rockets and rocket-propelled grenades to shelling by forces loyal to ruler Muammr Gaddafi in the eastern oil city of Brega... The clashes come one day after Gaddafi's forces recaptured the eastern oil town of Ras Lanuf [better Qaddafi than Exxon Mobil and BP] and forced the opposition to flee further east.

40 civilians suspected killed in US-NATO Tripoli strikes 31 Mar 2011 At least 40 civilians have been killed in air-strikes launched by the US and NATO allies in Tripoli according to a top official of the Catholic Church. Reuters has reported a conversation with the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli, Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, who has alleged the raids killed many civilian victims in various neighborhoods in Tripoli. Martinelli told the news agency that he had received the information from several witnesses, especially from the Buslim neighbourhood where a building collapsed, causing the death of 40 people.

Libya: CIA 'Cleared By Obama to Help Rebels' --Ex-intelligence officer: Some CIA agents had been based in agency's station in Dubai 30 Mar 2011 An US official has confirmed that CIA agents were sent into Libya undercover earlier this month after the agency's covert office in Tripoli was forced to close. CIA agents have been authorised to carry out covert missions to help rebel forces oust Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, according to reports. US President Barack Obama is said to have signed an order - known as a "finding" [for secret "all kinds of help"] - for the secret operations in the past two or three weeks.

U.S. intelligence source: CIA is operating inside Libya to help U.S. increase "military and political understanding" 30 Mar 2011 The CIA is operating in Libya to help the United States increase its "military and political understanding" of the situation, a U.S. intelligence source said. "But yes, we are gathering intel firsthand and we are in contact with some opposition entities," the source told CNN. The White House refused to comment on a Reuters report Wednesday that President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel troops.

Libyan rebels massacre black Africans By Wolfgang Weber 31 Mar 2011 The opposition forces in Libya attempting to march on Tripoli with the assistance of American, French and British bombs are far removed from the image of innocent civilians fighting for freedom and democracy promoted by the media and political circles. This is made clear in a March 22 article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by Gunnar Heinsohn, the author of Encyclopaedia of Genocide (Rowohlt, 1998). Heinsohn cites a report by the well-known Zimbabwean journalist and documentary filmmaker Farai Sevenzo dealing with barbaric, pogrom-like massacres perpetrated by the so-called "rebels" against black African workers in Libya.

Turkey says arming Libya rebels could spawn terrorism 31 Mar 2011 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rejected on Thursday the idea of supplying arms to Libya's rebel fighters, saying that doing so could be "conducive to terrorism." Speaking at a joint press conference in London with British Prime Minister David Cameron, Erdogan said he had a "negative" view on arming opposition forces battling Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Obama not ruling out Libya arms 29 Mar 2011 US President Barack Obama has said he does not rule out arming the rebels seeking to overthrow Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. He said in an interview that Col Gaddafi had been greatly weakened and would ultimately step down. Asked by US media if he supported arming the rebels, President Obama said: "I'm not ruling it out but I'm also not ruling it in."

Oil climbs to highest since 2008 on Libya conflict [Obomba's illegal invasion] --Oil rises above $106 a barrel as pro-Gadhafi forces push back rebels 31 Mar 2011 The price of oil rose past $106 a barrel on Thursday as fighters loyal to Moammar Gadhafi pushed back rebels from key areas in eastern Libya. Benchmark west Texas Intermediate crude gained $2.04 at $106.31 in morning trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That's the highest it's been since September, 2008.

Obama Expands Bush Doctrine By Michael Rectenwald, www.legitgov.org 30 Mar 2011 Obama has made clear that the pretext for invasion of sovereign nations will not be limited to protecting Americans from "terrorism" and "weapons of mass destruction" as after 9/11 under Bush. Pre-emptive action will also be taken against threats to "values" and commerce. That is, Obama has expanded the Bush doctrine to include cases wherein U.S. commercial interests are at stake, not only its supposed safety. Of course, this is precisely what the Bush doctrine was meant to include, but Obama has expressed this fact even more nakedly than Bush himself.

Appeals Court Makes It Easier for Govt to Hold Guantanamo Detainees 29 Mar 2011 In a decision that will likely make it more difficult for Guantanamo prisoners to win release, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today reversed a lower court's ruling in the pivotal case of a Yemeni detainee. In a 14-page decision, the appeals court rejected the lower court's ruling to release Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, who has been held at Guantanamo without charge since 2002... Today's decision further clarifies that standard by declaring that the government doesn't need direct evidence that a detainee fought for or was a member of al-Qaeda in order to justify a detention.

South Korea holds drills in Yellow Sea 30 Mar 2011 Amid tensions between South Korea and the North, Seoul has staged a live-fire artillery exercise near an island where the two Koreas exchanged fire in November 2010. The exercise on Yeonpyeong Island near the tense Yellow Sea border began at 9.30 a.m. (0030 GMT) and was scheduled to last about one hour.

False flag alert: Threats Claim Nuclear Bombs Hidden All Over U.S. 29 Mar 2011 A number of days ago, an envelope, with a Chicago postmark and a hand-written address to her private investigations firm, came in the mail. The letter inside said, "The Al-Qaeda [al-CIAduh] organization has planted 160 nuclear bombs throughout the U.S. in schools, stadiums, churches, stores, financial institutions and government buildings." The writer, who claims to be Osama Bin Laden, tells the reader the nukes are remotely controlled [from Langley, Va.]. Agencies in Oregon, California, Texas and Florida also got the letter with the Chicago postmark.

MSNBC: Killer Whale Returns to Show: Is it (Not 3 Nuclear Meltdowns) Safe? By Lori Price and MDR, www.legitgov.org 30 Mar 2011 MSNBC has been reporting ad nauseum all day about the killer whale that killed a trainer returning to Sea World. (See: Whale that killed trainer returns to SeaWorld show 30 Mar 2011.) Meanwhile, three nuclear meltdowns, with radiation 3,355 times the normal levels, continue to rage at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant Japan. Oh. MSNBC has also devoted numerous segments to promote their 'Will and Kate' interactive royal wedding website. "NBC networks will provide the ultimate wedding day coverage, with reports from more than a dozen reporters in London and a new royal wedding app for the iPad (iPhone and Android available soon)."

Japan nuclear crisis: Fukushima 50 'expect to die' 31 Mar 2011 Workers who have been fighting to bring the reactors under control at Japan's stricken nuclear plant expect to die from radiation sickness, according to the mother of one of the men. The so-called Fukushima 50, the group of around 300 technicians, soldiers and firemen who work in shifts of 50, have been exposed repeatedly to dangerously high radioactive levels as they attempt to avert a nuclear disaster. The mother of one of the men has admitted that the group have discussed their situation and have accepted that death is a strong possibility.

Japanese workers unable to mop up N-plant water 30 Mar 2011 Japanese workers have been unable to remove radiation-contaminated water at Fukushima power plant. The pumping of the contaminated water at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi power plant has been stopped due to reports that the radioactive core in reactor two had melted down. It is believed the core went through the bottom of its containment vessel onto a concrete floor. The contaminated water has been flooding through some parts of the facility.

Fukushima nuclear plant to be entombed in concrete as Japan admits it has lost battle with crippled reactors 31 Mar 2011 Japan has finally conceded it has lost the battle to contain radiation at four of its crippled reactors and they will be closed. Details of what that will entail have yet to be revealed, but officials said it would mean switching off all power and abandoning attempts to keep the nuclear fuel rods cool. The final move would involve pouring tonnes of concrete on the reactors to seal them in tombs and ensure radiation does not leak.

Radiation levels in seawater off Japan plant spike to all-time highs 30 Mar 2011 The level of radiation in ocean waters off Japan's embattled Fukushima Daiichi plant has risen to new highs -- measuring 4,385 times the standard -- an official with Japan's nuclear and industrial safety agency said Thursday. The samples, taken Wednesday from a monitoring post 330 meters (361 yards) into the Pacific Ocean, marked a significant increase from the previous day's news that the same I-131 isotope was 3,355 times the regulatory limit. Just last Friday, the radiation levels were 104 times more than a typical level.

High radiation outside Japan exclusion zone: IAEA 30 Mar 2011 Radiation measured at a village 40 km from Japan's crippled nuclear plant exceeded a criterion for evacuation, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday, the latest sign of widening consequences from the crisis. The finding could increase pressure on Japan's government to extend the exclusion zone beyond 20 km (12 miles) around the Fukushima power plant, which has leaked radioactive particles since it was hit by a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

IAEA concerned about radiation in Japan village 30 Mar 2011  The International Atomic Energy Agency has told Japan that radiation levels recorded at a village near a stricken nuclear reactor are over recommended levels, a senior IAEA official said on Wednesday. Iitate village lies 40 km (25 miles) northwest of the nuclear plant.

Tainted seafood fears spread as Japan plant leaks --Concern over seafood spreads as record radiation found in waters near Japan's nuke plant 30 Mar 2011 Fears about contaminated seafood spread Wednesday despite [phony] reassurances that radiation in the waters off Japan's troubled atomic plant pose no health risk, as the country's respected emperor consoled evacuees from the tsunami and nuclear emergency zone. The seafood concerns in the country that gave the world sushi are yet another blemish for Brand Japan.

Radiation Found in U.S. Milk 31 Mar 2011 Tests of milk samples taken last week in Spokane, Wash., indicate the presence of radioactive iodine from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, but at levels far below those at which action would have to be taken, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday. Radioactive materials in liquids are measured in pico-curies per liter, and the sample, taken March 25, showed a reading of 0.8 pico-curies, the agency said.

Japan engineers knew tsunami could overrun plant 30 Mar 2011 Over the past two weeks, Japanese government officials and Tokyo Electric Power executives have repeatedly described the deadly combination of the most powerful quake in Japan's history and the massive tsunami that followed as "soteigai", or beyond expectations. When Tokyo Electric President Masataka Shimizu apologised to the people of Japan for the continuing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant he called the double disaster "marvels of nature that we have never experienced before". But a review of company and regulatory records shows that Japan and its largest utility repeatedly downplayed dangers and ignored warnings - including a 2007 tsunami study from Tokyo Electric Power Company's senior safety engineer.

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Had 14 'Near-Miss' Problems In 2010: UCS Report 18 Mar 2011 A new report reveals that 14 "near-miss" problems prompting investigation at 13 power plants in 2010 may have been the result of poor oversight. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report Thursday examining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -- the [industry-pwned] government agency tasked with enforcing safety regulations at U.S. nuclear plants -- and 14 investigations it launched in 2010 in response to "troubling events, safety equipment problems, and security shortcomings."

Facebook shuts pro-Palestinian page 30 Mar 2011 US-based social networking website Facebook has obliterated a page that advocated a 'third Intifada (uprising)' in reaction to Israel's measures [against] the Palestinian people. The Tuesday move came after 350,000 people endorsed the campaign by 'liking' the page and many of its entries received thousands of comments, reported Ynetnews, the website for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. The move came after Israel's Minister of Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein addressed Facebook's creator Mark Zuckerberg in a letter, pleading with him to remove the page.

Tea Party Activists Rally to Pressure Republicans on U.S. Budget Talks 31 Mar 2011 Tea Party activists gather in Washington today with a clear message for the Republican majority they swept into power last fall: Hang tough, or else. They're rallying on the National Mall, heightening the pressure on the freshmen they helped elect and other fiscally conservative Republicans to stand firm for $61 billion in budget cuts passed by the House last month.

Wisconsin union-curbing law not in effect - state judge 31 Mar 2011 A Wisconsin state judge on Thursday issued a terse response to Republican Governor Scott Walker's moves to implement a new law reducing the powers rights of most public sector unions, saying it had not taken effect. Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi had issued a temporary restraining order enjoining publication of the law by the secretary of state in mid March while she heard an appeal over the way the lawmakers approved the legislation.

Ohio Senate Approves Revised SB 5 in 17-16 Vote 30 Mar 2011 After the Ohio House approved an amended version of Senate Bill 5, the legislation went back to the Senate for a concurrence vote. Late Wednesday evening, the revised version of SB5 passed in the Senate with a 17-16 vote. Both the House and Senate are controlled by the Republican Party, which is predominantly behind the union-busting bill.

Ohio House Approves Bill to Curb Unions for Government Workers 30 Mar 2011 The Republican-led Ohio House approved a bill limiting collective bargaining for about 360,000 state and local government workers and requiring minimum contributions for health care and pensions. The House voted 53-44, returning the measure to the Senate to concur with changes it made. The Senate approved a version of the bill March 2 and Republican Governor [nutjob] John Kasich has said he supports it.

Poll: Obama's approval hits new low 30 Mar 2011 President Barack Obama's approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. The decline in support for a second Obama term comes as his approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March, landing at 42 percent - a record low - in the poll released Wednesday.

Food Inflation Kept Hidden in Tinier Bags 29 Mar 2011 Chips are disappearing from bags, candy from boxes and vegetables from cans. As an expected increase in the cost of raw materials looms for late summer, consumers are beginning to encounter shrinking food packages. With unemployment still high, companies in recent months have tried to camouflage price increases by selling their products in tiny and tinier packages. So far, the changes are most visible at the grocery store, where shoppers are paying the same amount, but getting less.

Longer jump for the polar bear --The maximum extent of Arctic sea ice before melting season starts is at its lowest ever measured by satellites. Without ice the polar bear hardly survives. 29 Mar 2011 Scientists at the University of Colorado have followed the extent of the Arctic ice cap with satellites since 1979. Never before has the maximum winter extent of the sea ice been smaller than March 2011, according to the findings published at the portal of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. Climate scientists believe shrinking sea ice in the Arctic is due to global warming resulting from emission of climate gasses from human activities. Winter temperatures across the Arctic were anomalously warm this winter, reaching 2 to 6 degrees Celsius about normal in January.

Hold tight mum, I'm just drifting off: The otterly adorable dozing otters! 31 Mar 2011 There's nothing like a little snooze after you've had your lunchtime feed, but maybe this wasn't the perfect moment for junior to drop off. His mother - a rare white otter - ended up having to balance her four-month-old babe on her belly after he nodded off during suckling in the water. In the end, she carefully rolled the sleepy boy into the river where he continued to doze afloat on his back.

CLG needs your support.
http://www.legitgov.org/donate.html
Or, please mail a check or money order to CLG:
Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG)
P.O. Box 1142
Bristol, CT 06011-1142
Contributions to CLG are not tax deductible.
Those who wish to be added to the list can go here: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg and add your name. Those who wish to unsubscribe can go here: http://lists.people-link.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legitgov - you do NOT need a password to unsubscribe! If your email provider has marked this newsletter as spam, please mark it as 'not spam' and do not delete from a spam or 'junk' folder, as such actions trigger false spam complaints against the CLG. If you have any inquiries/issues with your subscription, please write: signup at legitgov dot org.
 
CLG Editor-in-Chief: Lori Price. Copyright © 2011, Citizens For Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.



--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

Fwd: Fw: hizb.org.uk | Full Site



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Fw: hizb.org.uk | Full Site
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com


 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:41 AM
Subject: hizb.org.uk | Full Site

hizb.org.uk | Full Site


Gillani is using cricket like a political football

Posted: 31 Mar 2011 02:15 PM PDT

Pakistan requires Islamic political will to overcome India off the Cricket pitch

Pakistan woke on Thursday to shattered dreams, broken hearts and lost hopes the night before the cricket team had lost in the World Cup Semi-Final to arch rivals India. In a purely Cricketing sense the team had succumbed under the huge expectation and pressure they must have been under. The game, quite possibly the biggest between the two nations had a lot more than sport riding on it though, with politicians and the media hyping it as the way in which to reach out to India and vice versa.

In sport, cricket is the lifeblood of the Pakistani masses, just like football in South America. Relief from adversity is often sought in sporting joy. Following the national team goes beyond simple nationalism, it is one of the very few chances that Pakistani's get to stand as near equals with the rest of the world. Cricket somehow seems to make up for political failure.

Major sporting occasions have for decades been used for political propaganda. During the cold war the Soviet Union put massive resources into ensuring its athletes were more than competitive at the Olympics.

Therefore it was no surprise to see Yusuf Raza Gilani spend the majority of the match seated next to his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh. The game was a much touted opportunity for the two to sit and discuss politics, for the first in years. In truth political matters are not settled over a game of cricket, especially when Gilani was the obvious inferior in the meeting.

The India – Pakistan relationship isn't in need of cricket diplomacy, it requires some political backbone from the Pakistani side. For years successive Pakistani governments have put the wishes of others before their own political gain, whether that be America in Kargil or NATO in Afghanistan. The issue of Kashmir is a simple one of Indian hegemony and it should be treated as such, the recent stepping up of the oppression of Kashmri Muslims clearly shows India's policy in the region.

While most of the Pakistani cricketers will live to fight another day, the government in Pakistan has more than over stayed its welcome. When you fail to protect your own people from foreign attack it is clear the time has come to move on. Hours after the defeat on the cricket pitch, Pakistan was being bombed by NATO strikes in South Waziristan, injuring 5 people

The passion the Pakistani people have for cricket needs to be transferred in to accounting their rulers, just like the people of Egypt and Tunsia. The likes of Gilani and Zadari use cricket to increase their popularity, they care not for the people.

Only Islam can give the politics in Pakistan the true direction it needs to move forward and stand with the likes of India on a level footing on and off the cricket pitch.

10 reasons against western intervention in Libya

Posted: 31 Mar 2011 01:53 PM PDT

As the west begins to openly consider arming those opposing Gaddhafi western intervention in Libya is going deeper and further than initially envisaged by many. However, looking at recent history western intervention is rarely as it is presented:

1.     Despite claims Western intervention is never solely humanitarian. The west has a canny knack of intervening is countries of strategic or material interest. In contrast to oil-rich Libya the west has conveniently looked away while greater humanitarian crimes have been committed by the regimes in Burma, Zimbabwe, Congo, to mention a relative few.

2.     Western intervention is clearly not principled. While condemning the dictatorship of Gaddhafi the West continues to support dictators like Karimov in Uzbekistan; Kingdoms in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco; and military men in Asia and Africa.

3.     Western intervention is hardly ethical. Mubarak in Egypt, Iraq's Saddam; and Ben Ali in Tunisia to quote a recent few were all for decades militarily, economically and politically propped up by the west.

4.     The west now talks about arming the rebels yet Gaddhafi is deploying arms and weapons supplied by the west against the people rising against his tyranny.

5.     When the west intervenes civilians die. Aerial bombings in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq by the US have killed numerous civilians, women and children.

6.     The west's use of no-fly zones and Ariel bombardment is normally a precursor to ground intervention – troop; bases, 'black ops'. Mission creep in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Pakistan amply evidences this.

7.     Western intervention is rarely short-lived. The west has occupied Afghanistan for over a decade while interference in Iraq is approaching 10 years – with no end in sight in both countries.

8.     Client, corrupt governments are the political legacy of western intervention – of this there could not be a clearer example than US sponsored Hamid Karzi in Afghanistan and the client coalitions, parachuted in western backed dissidents and divisive factions in Iraq.

9.     Loans, debt and an economy controlled by the IMFis the economic legacy of western intervention. In spite of the heavy price paid by Pakistan in carrying out US demands, it is the Pakistani economy, which is hugely indebted with the IMF effectively writing Pakistan's annual budget.

10.  Effective divisions of unified states and lands is the eventual result of western intervention as shown by the intervention in the Balkans and in Iraq with the north effectively autonomous from the US client leadership in Baghdad.

Libyan rebels divided over what would replace Gadhafi; many, but not all, favour democracy

Posted: 31 Mar 2011 03:49 AM PDT

"We want to get rid of that evil thief," he said, meaning Gadhafi, "then unite the Arabs under the motto, There is no God but Allah" — the Muslim declaration of faith.

BENGHAZI, Libya — The hundreds of men who come daily to this town's seized army base for lessons in shooting rifles, loading rocket launchers and firing artillery shells agree on at least two things: Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi must go and arms are the only way to get him out.

Beyond that, their visions of Libya should Gadhafi's 42-year reign end differ widely. Some want democracy. Others want a share of Libya's oil wealth. Still others, albeit a minority, see Libya's liberation as the first step toward establishing a regional Islamic state. That's bound to scare the international coalition bombing Gadhafi's forces.

The United States has already reached out to the opposition's political leadership. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with members of the Interim National Council on Tuesday in London.

The former U.S. Ambassador to Tripoli, Chris Stevens, is due to visit Benghazi soon, and President Barack Obama has not ruled out the possibility of arming rebel forces.

The interim council — largely stocked with foreign-educated, Westernized Libyans — insists it seeks a liberal democracy based on a constitution and with regular elections.

But interviews with over a dozen men receiving weapons training at a former Benghazi military camp provide a window into the diverse motivations pulling rebel ground troops into battle.

A few hundred show up daily at this base on the city's western edge, which rebels seized at the start of the uprising in mid-February and promptly renamed "The Martyrs' Brigade."

Training is run by a group of retired army officers, most in their 50s, who seek to provide bakers, bureaucrats, university students and taxi drivers with basic weapons know-how.

On a recent day, a toothless soldier showed one group how to aim a Kalashnikov, while another helped a father-son team assemble the barrel of an anti-aircraft gun.

All detailed reasons to hate Gadhafi's regime.

Ashraf Mohammed, a government bureaucrat, said he'd seen too many people abused by Gadhafi's rule. His brother was detained for seven months for being seen with the wrong people, he said. A neighbour spent seven years in prison, and a colleague did 17 before being released with no explanation, he said.

"All the accusations were political," said Mohammed, 31. "Any accusation that you are against the regime and it's over."

Next he explained which buttons to push to fire a rocket launcher in what he considers a fight for freedom.

"The goal is democracy, a constitution and transfer of power," he said. "Not just one ruling family."

University student Abdel-Salam Rigayi, 23, took advantage of a vacation — imposed by the fighting — to pursue a different dream.

"We want a society based on the Qur'an," he said, speaking in the formal Arabic tones of a mosque preacher.

"Freedom of religion, we don't want it," he said. "We want the freedom to practice our religion, but we don't want freedom for Jews and Christians and to have naked women and alcohol."

His friend, Mahdi Abu Bakir, 35, wore a bushy beard and a long white robe.

"We want to get rid of that evil thief," he said, meaning Gadhafi, "then unite the Arabs under the motto, There is no God but Allah" — the Muslim declaration of faith.

The camp's trainers insisted the program was going well, though they acknowledge the inferiority of their arms — mostly munitions seized from long-neglected army bases or retreating regime forces.

"We lack weapons, while Gadhafi's troops have modern, strong weapons," said Fawzi Abdullah Moussa, who retired from the Libyan army in 1998 after a 30-year career. "But we have determination and belief to push us forward."

The camp reflects the disorganization among rebel forces. Anyone who enters gets training without any physical, medical or ideological screening. No one checks their identities, and few names are recorded.

Trainers said they sent fighters to the front, but all gave different answers on when the last group left and how large it was. No one could explain how they communicate with the front in a facility with no electricity and no radios. They even disagreed on whether an "operations room" exists to co-ordinate the fight.

Some worry extremists will exploit the chaos.

NATO's top commander, U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, told Congress Tuesday that officials had seen "flickers" of possible al-Qaida and Hezbollah involvement with rebel forces. But he said there was no evidence of significant numbers within the opposition leadership.

Spokesman Mustafa Gheriani of the opposition council in Benghazi said that any extremists among the fighters are exceptions and that ensuring democracy is the only way to combat them.

"Once you have a democracy and a constitution, there is nothing for the West to fear," he said. "Democracy generally puts down all of these extremist elements. Our best bet is a democracy."

But the council has no control over who is picking up guns to join the fight.

While some at the training camp talked of the importance of Arab unity or the role of Islam in their society, none mentioned al-Qaida or any other terror or militant group. Most focused merely on hatred of Gadhafi.

On an oil-stained blanket, Karim Mahmoud, 48, and his 15-year old son struggled to assemble an anti-aircraft gun. Another son, 11, watched closely.

Mahmoud, a baker, said Gadhafi's brutality pushed him — despite diabetes, high blood pressure and heart troubles — to seek arms with his sons.

"We lived under oppression for a long time, but we put up with it," he said. "But when the regime killed our friends and brothers, we had to join the defence. The regime forced us to fight against it."

A handful of others obviously under 18 were scattered among the hundreds of trainees. One trainer even pointed out his 10-year-old son sitting among a group being taught to use a rifle.

Mahmoud dismissed concerns that his sons were too young to fight.

"I'm ready to send them tomorrow to defend the nation," he said. "If they die, it will be in the path of God and I'll see them in heaven."

His son, Abdel-Rahman, 15, didn't look like a fighter in a black baseball cap and a fake leather jacket, with a downy moustache just emerging on his lip. He claimed otherwise.

"I hope to go and die a martyr," he said. "I'm not too young."

The Canadian Press

Challenge to Cameron over torture claims

Posted: 31 Mar 2011 03:47 AM PDT

Alleged terrorist says he was taken to Uganda and interrogated by MI5

An alleged terrorist says he has been interrogated by the Queen's British intelligence officers after being severely mistreated at a notorious prison in Uganda, in what appears to be the first major challenge to the coalition government's renunciation of the use of torture.

Omar Awadh Omar, a Kenyan businessman, has been charged with involvement in the planning of suicide bomb attacks in Kampala last July in which 76 people died and more than 70 were injured.

Awadh was abducted in Nairobi two months after the attacks and illegally rendered to Uganda to be interrogated and charged. Since then, according to his lawyers and relatives, he has been repeatedly beaten, threatened with a firearm and with further rendition to Guantánamo by Ugandan officials, before being questioned by American officials. They say that on at least one occasion he was also questioned by men who identified themselves as the Queen's  MI5 officers.

Awadh's case has been taken up by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), a human rights body founded by the philanthropist George Soros, which says his mistreatment not only calls into question the Queen and her UK government's commitment to avoid involvement in torture, but points to a loophole in interrogation guidance for the Queen's British intelligence officers, which was rewritten after the coalition was formed.

Clara Gutteridge, national security fellow at the OSJI, said: "The facts of this case suggest a worrying new trend in US-UK overseas detention policy, and raise urgent questions as to the legality of the new consolidated guidance for UK security and intelligence personnel operating overseas.The Queen's  UK governments condemnations of torture are wearing increasingly thin.

"Omar Awadh's case raises very serious concerns that the Queen's British are now involved in what is essentially a sort of decentralised, outsourced Guantánamo Bay."

The Queen's Foreign Office declined to comment on Awadh's allegation that he was interrogated by British intelligence officers after being mistreated. "It is an intelligence matter, so I can't comment," a spokesman said.

The Queen's  Home Office refused to comment on MI5′s alleged involvement. "We don't comment on operational security matters," a spokeswoman said.

The Queen's UK intelligence officers are expected to consult ministers in most circumstances in which a detainee they wish to question is at risk of torture. Asked whether Theresa May, the home secretary, or any of her ministers had been consulted about any questioning of Awadh in Uganda, the Home Office said: "The security service operates within legal guidelines, which include the consolidated guidelines. The guidelines would have been followed, if they needed to have been."

Supporters of Awadh, 38, a used-car salesman, say he is a human rights activist. The Ugandan government has accused him of involvement with both al-Qaida and al-Shabab, the Islamist group fighting to overthrow the government of Somalia which claimed responsibility for the Kampala bomb attacks. On 17 September he was abducted by a group of men in suits, who dragged him from a shopping centre in Moi Avenue in central Nairobi and bundled him into a waiting car. He later told his lawyers that he was taken before a senior officer of Kenya's anti-terrorism police unit before being driven, hooded and still cuffed, to the Ugandan border.

Ugandan officials then drove him to the headquarters of the rapid response unit (RRU), an organisation that has been condemned by human rights activists. According to a report published on Wednesday by Human Rights Watch, "RRU personnel beat detainees with batons, sticks, bats, metal pipes, padlocks, table legs, and other objects", and committed six extra-judicial killings last year.

After the formation of the coalition, the government sought to distance itself from the counterterrorism practices that came to haunt the Labour administration, including within the coalition agreement the one-line pledge: "We will never condone the use of torture."

The government also ordered the redrafting of the guidance given to British intelligence officers who question detainees held overseas, or who pass or receive information about prisoners. When making the rewritten guidance public, David Cameron told the Commons that it "makes clear that … our services must never take any action where they know or believe that torture will occur".

The new guidance faced an immediate legal challenge from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which said its wording – echoing that of the prime minister – allows the Queen's  MI5 and MI6 officers to continue questioning people being tortured because they can claim not to "know or believe" what is happening as long as they are not present during the abuse. That case is yet to be heard by the court.

Awadh alleges he was beaten, slapped, threatened with incarceration in Guantánamo, and had a handgun pointed at him. He says that after being abused in this manner he was questioned repeatedly by Americans who identified themselves as from the FBI. According to Awadh, these officials accepted he was not involved in the Kampala bombings, but wanted him to divulge information about Somalia.

During meetings with his Ugandan lawyer, John Onyango, and in a series of smuggled letters to his wife, Awadh said he was also interrogated last January by MI5 officers, who showed him a series of photographs and asked questions about British nationals thought to have travelled to Somalia. It is unclear whether he has been subject to any subsequent interrogation by British intelligence.

Awadh was charged by the Ugandan authorities with being present at a number of meetings in Nairobi at which the suicide bombings were said to have been discussed. He is also accused of being in possession of incriminating material, including body armour, when detained by Ugandan police, although at the point of his arrest he had been in Kenyan custody for several hours.

He is one of 17 people charged over the attacks. Eight are Kenyan, seven of them rendered in operations condemned by the Kenyan ministry of justice and the British high commission in Nairobi.

The eighth is a prominent Kenyan human rights activist, Al-Amin Kimathi, who has campaigned against rendition, and whose arrest led Human Rights Watch to question whether the Ugandan authorities were attempting to silence "a well-known critic of government abuses in the fight against terrorism in east Africa".

Awadh is being held at Luzira maximum security prison in Kampala. His wife, Raabia, who has three children, says she is deeply worried about her husband.

The threat said to be posed by British nationals travelling to Somalia for terrorism training has been of concern to western intelligence agencies for some time. In October 2009 Jonathan Evans, the head of the Queen's MI5, said in a public speech that the UK's domestic security was as dependent on events in Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan as on those in British cities.

Soon after that an American diplomat at the US embassy in Nairobi warned in a cable later posted on the internet by WikiLeaks: "There is believed to be a certain amount of so-called 'jihadi tourism' to southern Somalia by UK citizens of Somali ethnicity. The threat from Somalia is compounded by the fact that within east Africa there is a lack of local government recognition of the terrorist threat."

Since then, British officials have said they have concerns about some 40 British nationals who have travelled to Somalia.

On Tuesday the Queen's  Foreign Office published guidance to staff, making clear that they have an obligation to report allegations of torture, even if the victim is not entitled to consular assistance.

Guardian

You are subscribed to email updates from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.



--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

Fwd: [bangla-vision] ARAB NEWS: Unite to change social order: Al-Sudais



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erooth Mohamed <ekunhan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] ARAB NEWS: Unite to change social order: Al-Sudais
To: Grp Muslim Brothers <muslim-brothers@yahoogroups.com>, Grp Muslim Kerala <Muslim_kerala@yahoogroups.com>, Muslim Umma <muslim-umma@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Sunni Kerala <sunnikerala@yahoogroups.com>, Grp Indian Islahi <indianislahi@googlegroups.com>, ISM <Malayalam-Islamic-Class@yahoogroups.com>


 

Arab news

Unite to change social order: Al-Sudais

Friday, 01 April 2011  |  Rabiʻ II 27, 1432

NEW DELHI: Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, laid the foundation stone for the Students' Islamic Center in New Delhi Sunday and urged the student community to work together to change the social order and bring about progress and prosperity.

The imam commended the Students Islamic Organization of India (SIO), which is building the center, for its efforts in spreading the message and culture of Islam among the student community. The SIO has branches in most Indian states as well as in GCC countries.

"I am very happy to learn that the SIO is playing an important role in the Indian society," the imam said. "The student community is a vital source of development and progress for any country," he said. He wished every success for the student center project.

Earlier, SIO President Muhammad Azharuddin welcomed the imam and introduced his organization. "We are greatly honored to have Your Excellency to launch this Islamic center project," he said.

The SIO works for preparing students and youth for the reconstruction of society in the light of divine guidance, Azharuddin said. "The SIO believes that the real function of education should be to impart genuine knowledge about life, existence and future," he added.

The ceremony at the SIO headquarters was attended by President of Indian Jamaat-e-Islami Syed Jalaluddin Umari, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs' Abdul Aziz Swaleh, Jamaat vice presidents Siddique Hassan and Muhammad Jaafar, SIO's secretary-general P.M. Saleh and other dignitaries.

Al-Sudais, who is on a five-day tour of India, also attended an Islamic conference organized by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind where he called for setting up a television channel to spread the teachings of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

The imam emphasized the importance of inculcating the values professed by the sahaba (the Prophet's companions) in the daily lives of Muslims. He urged parents to bring up their children on these values. "A special TV channel should be set up to ensure that people get to know about the noble lives of the sahaba and their values and messages," the imam said. 

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article332292.ece/REPRESENTATIONS/large_620x350/sau-united-to-change-cap.jpg

Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais speaks after laying the foundation stone for the Students' Islamic Center in New Delhi on Sunday. (AN photo)

 

http://arabnews.com/world/article332176.ece/REPRESENTATIONS/large_620x350/sau_unite.jpg

SheikSheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais waves as he addresses a conference on "The Greatness of Blessed Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)" in New Delhi Saturday. (Reuters)h Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais waves as he addresses a conference on "The Greatness of Blessed Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)" in New Delhi Saturday. (Reuters)

 

http://arabnews.com/world/article332175.ece/REPRESENTATIONS/large_620x350/sau_united2.jpg


Indian Muslims gather for sunset prayers being led by Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, at the Jama Masjid in New Delhi, on Sunday. (AP)

 





__._,_.___


--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/