Messages In This Digest (19 Messages) Messages - 1.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST) http://english. ruvr.ru/2012/ 01/31/65019303. htmlVoice of Russia January 31, 2012 US keeps up sabre-rattling show for Iran Andrei Ptashnikov News from Washington proves that the US is serious about its plan to carry out a military operation against Iran. Announcer: Washington has repeatedly threatened Iran on the highest level. US Defense Minister Leon Panetta has also publicly declared that such a development was quite realistic. In his interview for the CBS TV company he said: "The United States - and the president's made this clear - does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us, and it's a red line obviously for the Israelis, so we share a common goal here. If we have to do it we will deal with it. If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it." Panetta almost literally repeated US President Barack Obama's message on the situation in the country which he sent to Congress several days ago. Obama also declared that America would not stop at anything to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons. Given all these belligerent declarations, one gets the impression that a military solution to the Iran problem seems most likely to Washington. Israel, a loyal US ally, holds the same view. It seems that even Tehran's readiness to resume talks on its nuclear programme with six international intermediaries is not taken into consideration any more. Tough economic sanctions are being introduced against Iran and more and more US combat ships are patrolling the Persian Gulf. One would like to hope that all these are only methods of political and economic pressure on Iran and no military actions will follow. But what if they do follow, like in Iraq and Afghanistan? At that time we also doubted that America would venture on an armed invasion, but it did venture on an invasion, though without any special accomplishments. The same scenario may be repeated this year, especially ahead of the forthcoming presidential election in the US. It is common knowledge that a short victorious war usually raises the country's leader's popularity to the skies. The current US president needs this badly as his rating is rather low at present. However, a war against Iran is unlikely to be short and victorious. Iran is a much stronger enemy than Iraq or Afghanistan, where the wars have already lasted for 10 years. Incidentally, the US invaded Iraq on the same charges it is using against Iran now. No nuclear weapons have been discovered in Iraq, so Washington has to think again. Leon Panetta gave a touching detail in his TV interview. "The toughest thing in this job, frankly, is writing the condolence letters to the parents of those young men and women who are killed in action. But I also say to them, 'Your son or daughter is really a true hero and patriot, because they were willing to give their life for their country. And that means that they'll never be forgotten.' And I hope that's some measure of comfort for them - because, in the end, the only comfort I have is to know that these kids, when they put their lives on the line, are helping America be strong for the future." We can only say one thing definitely in this respect. America will not grow stronger in the war against Iran and the head of the Pentagon will have to sign many more mournful letters. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 2.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST) http://english. ruvr.ru/2012/ 01/31/65011147. htmlVoice of Russia January 31, 2012 Georgian-American homage Natalya Kovalenko ==== [A] reason to befriend Tbilisi is a possible military aggression against Iran. In this case, the US could use Georgian territory for the deployment of US aircraft. The US would not even have to ask Georgia, as experience shows that Georgia is a voluntary participant in all US military operations. If Saakashvili's candidature is approved in Washington he as good as having the presidential post in his pocket already. ==== Talks between the US and Georgian presidents have taken place in Washington. Mikhail Saakashvili did not manage to enumerate definite agreements they reached but called the meeting productive. Experts believe that the presidents talked about a possible attack against Iran and US support for Saakashvili in the presidential election in Georgia in 2013. Announcer: The Georgian leader had advertised his first official visit to Washington long before the meeting with Obama. He said that American-Georgian relations were achieving a real breakthrough in the fields of security, defence, trade, tourism, energy supplies, science, education, culture, etc. However, his expectations must have been overrated. The meeting was only a ceremonial event, at least that part of it where journalists were allowed. The presidents exchanged stock phrases about their adherence to the development of relations in the fields of security and strategic partnership. Following the meeting, Obama called Georgia a responsible player in the world arena, promised further US support for Georgia in its bida to join NATO and declared further consolidation of trade relations between the two countries, including a possible free trade agreement. Speaking frankly, it was hardly worthwhile crossing the Atlantic to hear these generalities but Saakashvili is in no position to decline an invitation from Washington. President of the Politika Foundation Vyacheslav Nikonov says: "Georgia is a country that the US has been granting great support to in recent years. If we look at the figures, Georgia always either came second after Israel or third after Israel and Egypt, according to the amount of money invested in its support by the US. Georgia constantly receives US military assistance and American instructors train the Georgian army." On the other hand, relations between the US and Georgia cooled down in the last couple of years. Washington could not have failed to notice Tbilisi's outrageous violation of human rights and freedoms. However, to stop Saakashvili from impeding Russia's joining the WTO, Washington had to compromise. For this reason, Obama declared that the US appreciated the model of democracy and transparency that Georgia had set up in its region. Another reason to befriend Tbilisi is a possible military aggression against Iran. In this case, the US could use Georgian territory for the deployment of US aircraft. The US would not even have to ask Georgia, as experience shows that Georgia is a voluntary participant in all US military operations. Political scientist, St. Petersburg University Professor Valery Ostrovsky says: "If we take the Afghan war, Georgia takes first place among coalition countries in the number of servicemen sent there as against the percentage of its population. Georgians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq and this policy seems to persist." On his part, Saakashvili needs support from abroad ahead of the 2013 presidential campaign. He can very well manage the domestic opposition but his position is too shaky to withstand reproaches for violating democratic values on the part of overseas human rights protectors. If Saakashvili's candidature is approved in Washington he as good as having the presidential post in his pocket already. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 3.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST) http://pakobserver. net/detailnews. asp?id=138080Pakistan Observer January 31, 2012 Review of NATO attack Asif Haroon Raja* Edited by RR It will be recalled that in order to multiply pressure on Pakistan, the western border was deliberately heated up by Pakistan's strategic partners sitting in Kabul. Between May and September 2011, tens of deadly raids had been conducted by Waliur Rehman- and Maulvi Faqir-led militants based in the safe haven of Kunar and by Fazlullah-led militants based in Nuristan duly backed by the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS), RAAM, the Afghan regime and NATO. Levies employed on border duties and villagers were cruelly killed by militants. Kabul and ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] HQ were repeatedly requested to control cross-border terrorism and to close down the sanctuaries of anti-Pakistan militants in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, but no heed was paid. Perforce, General Headquarters deployed regular troops in Mehmand [Mohmand] and Chitral and cleared the restive areas of the presence of undesirables. The 7 AK Regiment was deployed in the Mehmand Agency closer to the Afghan border. It established several border posts to keep a watch over possible infiltration routes. Two posts, Volcano and Boulder, were set up ahead of a village in the Mohmand Agency on a barren ridgeline about 8,000 feet in height in a manner that they leaned forward on the forward slope so as to effectively cover the valley running from east to west. The two posts, each comprising about a platoon strength of 34 soldiers, were so deployed as to cover the northwestern and northeastern approaches. Weapons were sighted in a manner as to be able of bringing down an enfilade and spraying fire in the valley. One post covered the exit point of the valley in the west; the second post covered the eastern edge at the entry point. Company HQ with a platoon was in depth. The posts located on a dominating salient enjoyed excellent line of sight and arc of fire. The two posts also acted as the screen for the battalion. The valley was frequented by TTP [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan] militants together with Afghan National Army-trained Afghan militants based in Kunar. This route was the shortest and safest from Kunar and led straight to heart of the Mehmand Agency wherefrom the infiltrators had multiple choices to either strike within that tribal agency, or Bajaur, or Upper or Lower Dir. Deeper targets in Malakand, Buner, Swat or even Chitral and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa could also be reached via Mehmand. As a consequence of the deployment of the two posts, several attempts by militants to sneak through the valley were successfully blocked. As a result, cross-border movement had ceased from mid-October onwards. Blockage of the main passageway resulted in the assembling of large numbers of militants belonging to the TTP in Kunar who were getting desperate to enter Pakistan. The Karzai regime, NDS [National Directorate of Security] and Afghan National Army (ANA) were also boiling with anger after attacks on NDS HQ and murder of Prof Rabbani in Kabul and wanted to settle scores. In order to seek assistance from NATO, NDS and RAW [India's Research and Analysis Wing] passed false information to the CIA that Pakistan-sponsored militants were using the Salala-Kunar route to create unrest in Kunar and other regions of Eastern Afghanistan. It was also conveyed that the two Pakistani posts at Salala were not only providing cover to the infiltrators but also preventing the movement of their fighters into Mehmand. Based on this input, a comprehensive plan was hatched in Kabul to provide covering fire to the batch of over 100 militants and ensure their safe entry. It was also planned to destroy the two posts so as to remove the irritants for good. As a cover-up, plan, a mockup operation by the ANA was conducted in Kunar province from 25 November onwards. NATO air cover was made part of the operation. The area was well away from the Salala area and deep inside Afghan territory and the Pakistan Army was informed about it in advance. Just before dawn on the night of 25/26th, when all the soldiers were fast asleep except for the sentries on duty, two Apache helicopters suddenly crossed the border and started firing at the two posts indiscriminately. The helicopters remained at a safe distance for fear of being hit by an ack-ack gun or a surface-to-air missile. The helicopters were backed by four other combat helicopters and close air support was provided by F-18s. No sooner had fire came on the posts than a field officer commanding the two posts instantly contacted the ISAF and informed it that Pakistani posts were being attacked and that the fire must cease. But firing continued for one hour. During this period, the bulk of the infiltrating force along with donkeys laden with ammunition and explosives moved past the valley. By that time, urgent messages had been sent by GHQ on a hotline and the helicopters turned back. When the helicopters went away and the dust settled down, the defenders detected movement in the valley. The stragglers had still not gone past the valley and as such were brought under coordinated fire. On receipt of a distress signal from the militants, the helicopters returned and plastered the two posts with ATGMs [anti-tank guided missiles] with a vengeance for the next thirty minutes. 24 soldiers including one major and one subaltern died and 16 soldiers received serious injuries. In order to obfuscate the facts NATO has taken urged a plea as an afterthought that the helicopters responded to hostile fire coming from the posts. There was no reason for the defenders to open fire at the helicopters without any provocation. If one agrees with NATO's preposterous contention for argument sake, the fast-moving and highly maneuverable helicopters with anti-armor and anti-aircraft protection could have easily moved away out of range of the weapons deployed on the ground. If it was unintentional, as claimed by NATO leadership, why couldn't the helicopters equipped with night-fighting capability see a Pakistani flag fluttering on top of a post and soldiers dressed in uniforms, particularly when each flying helicopter/jet/ cargo plane carries marked maps showing the border and border posts? If the helicopters came in response to the call made by the ANA, how come the attackers attacked the static posts atop a ridgeline? In these ten years NATO should have learnt that Taliban never take up static defences and that too on hilltops. They prefer caves and valleys. If the helicopters made a mistake once, why was the mistake repeated? If the map reference of Salala posts was marked wrongly by the Border Coordination Centre, or passed on wrongly by a NATO liaison officer, why did the massacre continue for ninety minutes after NATO HQ was frantically informed on a hotline at multiple levels including GHQ to get the fire stopped forthwith? Since the real purpose was to give covering fire to the infiltrators, heads of the troops manning the posts were pinned down to facilitate the unobserved and unhindered movement of infiltrators carrying their extra baggage on donkeys. It would be a sheer underestimation of NATO power to take nearly two hours to destroy posts made of cement blocks and strengthened by sandbags. It was a willful massacre and it didn't end on 26 November. The terrorists that managed to sneak in on that night are now busy carrying out terrorist attacks in Kyhber Pakhtunkwa, Khyber Agency and other nearby areas. The inquest carried out by ISAF's Brig Stephen Clark apportions equal blame on both sides and wrongfully maintains that the fire was in self-defence. The US accepts several omissions made by the attackers but terms all of them coincidental and affixes partial responsibility on Pakistan. It is inconceivable that the ISAF, with the best technology, was unaware of the existence of two posts. US officials consistently stated that the attack was unintentional before and during the course of inquiry, thereby influencing the investigating team. The US wants the Pakistan Army to accept this factually incorrect report based on half-truths. Mercifully, the Army and the government are on one page. Not only has the report has been rejected, the government has taken bold and appropriate steps to checkmate America's bellicosity and aggressive unilateralism. *The writer is a retired Brig [brigadier commander] and a defence analyst. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 4.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST) http://www.dailytim es.com.pk/ default.asp? page=2012\02\01\story_ 1-2-2012_ pg3_4 Daily Times February 1, 2012 Clarity on the war 'of' terror Isfundiar Kasuri ==== [T]he US chose to make Pakistan its first client state in the region. Since its inception Pakistan has overwhelmingly been the recipient of military aid. As a direct consequence, efforts at democratisation were continuously stymied and whatever civilian leaders emerged did so due to military patronage. Not surprising then that, as in Chile, Venezuela, Panama, Vietnam, the Philippines, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and a host of other countries the US has intervened in, widespread corruption has manifested itself amongst the nations' past and present cadre of civilian and military leaders. Across the border in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Reagan and Zia followed through on Kennan's inspirational words and gave birth to a new breed of warriors, one that would not be too enamoured by concepts like democracy and human rights. It is indeed a strange country where the alien imperial power is on the verge of accepting the futility of continuing these gross violations of international law (acts of murder) but where its so-called 'liberal elite' is hell-bent upon a continuation of these attacks that, for all their alleged pinpoint accuracy, resulted in the deaths of no less than 780 civilians of whom 175 were children. ==== Imran Khan's critics complain that he incorrectly lays the blame for the war on terror's negative effects on Pakistan to its alliance with the US. Firstly, Imran Khan does not believe the US and Pakistan have any sort of an 'alliance'. The more appropriate word to describe the relationship would be one of Pakistani 'subservience' to its imperial overlord. As George Kennan, the State Department's Head of Policy Planning, wrote in a top secret memo (Policy Planning Study 23) back in 1948, "We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population.. .Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming. We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratisation. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans (in reality) the better." In keeping with the strategy suggested by Kennan, a major figure in shaping the post-war world, the US chose to make Pakistan its first client state in the region. Since its inception Pakistan has overwhelmingly been the recipient of military aid. As a direct consequence, efforts at democratisation were continuously stymied and whatever civilian leaders emerged did so due to military patronage. Not surprising then that, as in Chile, Venezuela, Panama, Vietnam, the Philippines, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and a host of other countries the US has intervened in, widespread corruption has manifested itself amongst the nations' past and present cadre of civilian and military leaders. Across the border in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Reagan and Zia followed through on Kennan's inspirational words and gave birth to a new breed of warriors, one that would not be too enamoured by concepts like democracy and human rights. Thirty years later, the Taliban are still in business, thanks to unlimited funding from the US and Saudi Arabia and the logistical support of 'subservient' Pakistan. It is important to note that while Saudi funding and Pakistani 'deep state' support remains in the spotlight, the news that even the Pentagon has acknowledged payoffs by their contractors to Taliban bureaucrats for protection of its convoys (everything from toothpaste to pizzas to assault rifles) to Forward Operating Bases in Kandahar in the hundreds of millions of dollars remains an unimportant fact to most observers. Not to Imran Khan, though, who has consistently referred to this war as one 'of terror'; a war that serves to increasingly radicalise the populations on whom it is being waged. Imran Khan's clarity on the war of terror was further illustrated when in 2011 the White House itself began to use words like 'negotiations' and phrases like 'political integration' with reference to the Taliban; something Khan had been suggesting since 2004. He is also opposed to drone strikes. However, it is argued by Pakistan's few supporters of drone strikes that casualties are being exaggerated and that the tribal folks wholeheartedly support the use of WMDs in their own villages. Clearly Colonel David Kilcullen, a leading expert and top US adviser on counterinsurgency, did not have all the facts when back in 2009, he testified before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, "...If we want to strengthen our friends and weaken our enemies in Pakistan, bombing Pakistani villages with unmanned drones is totally counter-productive." Perhaps he had not consulted with the fellow who ran the drone strike campaign on behalf of the Americans for years, Dennis Blair. Oh, wait. After years of having run the programme he called them 'counterproductive' too. That is unless, as Noam Chomsky suggests, your purpose is to foment radicalism and 'shock and awe' terror for Wall Street profits. Putting it even more succinctly, using his superior intellect he arrived at the not so difficult conclusion that "you tend not to like people (US and its Pakistani sycophants) if they bomb your homes...no matter who lives next door". This truth, while unacceptable to Pakistan's proponents of drone strikes, was perfectly clear to CIA Director Michael Hayden who, according to Bob Woodward's book Obama's Wars, informed the incoming president that the Bush administration understood these drone strikes could never end the terrorist threat in Pakistan. Obama ignored the advice, only to be told later by his own Intelligence Director Dennis Blair that "hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan" because of the strikes. This is exactly the point Imran Khan was making when he argued in Davos at the World Economic Forum last year that the war on terror is not just a disaster for the US but an even bigger disaster for Pakistan, where "it is causing more radicalisation, more polarisation in society" then ever before. Pratap Chatterjee, of the London-based Bureau of Investigative Reporting, confirmed that he had personally met with over three dozen family members of drone victims and elders from Waziristan who reject the claim that civilians are not being killed in large numbers. It is indeed a strange country where the alien imperial power is on the verge of accepting the futility of continuing these gross violations of international law (acts of murder) but where its so-called 'liberal elite' is hell-bent upon a continuation of these attacks that, for all their alleged pinpoint accuracy, resulted in the deaths of no less than 780 civilians of whom 175 were children. While it is fair to be optimistic that the US will have no reason to extend these strikes into Pakistan's major metropolitan areas, one cannot help but be curious about how the 'local dog, foreign bark' brigade will feel regarding 'collateral damage' at their own doorstep. Of course, as stated earlier, even the authentic 'foreign bark' is starting to sound local. In the face of unprecedented unpopularity and gross negligence, Khan's view - that the drone strikes increase radicalisation and that Pakistan's subservience to US interests is detrimental to its own - continues to be legitimised not just by those who always agreed but now by those who have conducted the war itself. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 5.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST) http://gulfnews. com/opinions/ columnists/ move-to-strike- iran-lacks- rationale- 1.973011 Gulf News January 30, 2012 Move to strike Iran lacks rationale By Adel Safty ==== More than 40 years after the NPT was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force two years later, it is an indisputable fact that the nuclear powers are no closer today to achieving nuclear disarmament than they were 40 years ago. The public relations campaign for war against Iran is starting to acquire an eerie resemblance to the one that made the war against Iraq possible. It is fuelled by disregard for international law, a low priority for the role of diplomacy, dismissal of inconvenient facts, and a disturbing accommodation of Israeli militaristic designs in the region. Furthermore, the covert war of subversion inside Iran and the growing sanctions suggest that the undeclared goal in Iran is regime change. ==== Much of the debate taking place in the American and Israeli media on whether to go to war against Iran to put a stop to its development of nuclear weapons justifies sanctions and even war by arguing that Iran breached its international obligations. Sanctions, in the form of a ban on oil purchases from Iran, were imposed by the European Union. Last week, the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany declared in a joint statement: "Iran has so far had no regard for its international obligations. .." A nuclear Iran, the argument goes, would be a danger to its neighbour, and a threat to peace. What exactly are these international obligations? Iran is being accused of developing nuclear weapons in breach of its treaty obligations under The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran rejects that accusation. But an argument can be made that those countries that are harassing Iran with sanctions and threats of war have also failed to meet their international obligations. The NPT obligates the nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to negotiate in good faith an end to the nuclear arms race and a date for achieving complete disarmament. The non-nuclear weapon states who are signatories of the treaty undertook not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. More than 40 years after the NPT was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force two years later, it is an indisputable fact that the nuclear powers are no closer today to achieving nuclear disarmament than they were 40 years ago. And judging by the number of countries that have since achieved nuclear status (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) the NPT has also failed in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This does not relieve Tehran from its obligations under the treaty and of its responsibility to fulfil these obligations, if indeed it were to be objectively established that Iran is breaching these obligations. At least as long as the NPT maintains a sense of credibility. But imagine the blow to the credibility of the NPT and indeed to international law in general if the US or Israel or both were to launch a war against Iran to destroy nuclear facilities that are recognised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ostensibly in the name of enforcing respect for international law. Even if the IAEA were to establish that Iran had diverted nuclear material to military use, a violation of the NPT treaty, this in itself does not justify war against Iran. The use of force by the US against a fellow UN member will have to be legally justified. And under international law it can only be justified in two cases: First, when used in self-defence. But the argument of self-defence requires a threat that is imminent and leaving no time for reflection. No one can convincingly argue that Iran poses an imminent threat to the US. And not even the twisted logic used by the Bush administration to claim that it had a right of pre-emptive defence, can remedy the defect in the self-defence argument. The second case of justifiable use of force is when resort to force is authorised by the UN Security Council. But such authorisation can only be accorded if it was found that Iran posed a threat to peace because of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. There are many states that have developed nuclear weapons or pursuing the capacity to do it; yet they are not considered a threat to peace. Indeed, Israel, the leading advocate for war against Iran, is a nuclear power itself that has steadily refused to allow international inspection of its nuclear facilities. But you would be hard pressed to find someone in the influential American media even suggesting that an Israel armed with nuclear weapons, given its record of repeated assaults against its neighbours, is the real threat to peace in the region. Still, it is remarkable that the American defence and intelligence establishment has reached the conclusion that war against Iran is impractical and likely to bring about that which it seeks to prevent. Former CIA director General Michael Hayden was recently quoted in the press as saying that during the Bush administration. "When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret." Nonetheless, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, described as the most militaristic candidate on Iran, continues to advocate an all-out war against Iran including a ground invasion to try to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. Typical of the Santorum logic, his plan for invading Iran would not constitute war against a sovereign country. It would be, he said, an operation designed to "prevent war". It is worth noting here that Santorum is defending his indefensible logic as part of his overall identification with the hardliners in Israel. In fact, Santorum's recent statement that there were no Palestinians in the West Bank, only Israelis, went beyond the claims of the most dogmatic hardliners in Israel. The public relations campaign for war against Iran is starting to acquire an eerie resemblance to the one that made the war against Iraq possible. It is fuelled by disregard for international law, a low priority for the role of diplomacy, dismissal of inconvenient facts, and a disturbing accommodation of Israeli militaristic designs in the region. Furthermore, the covert war of subversion inside Iran and the growing sanctions suggest that the undeclared goal in Iran is regime change. Adel Safty is author of From Camp David to the Gulf (Montreal); Democracy and Governance (Istanbul); Leadership and Democracy (New York); Might Over Right: How the Zionists Took Over Palestine (England). ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 6.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST) http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com/2012/ 02/01/u-s- backs-indian- proxy-in- military- encirclement- of-china/ India's Military Adventure against China By Sajjad Shaukat* ==== [T]he Indian government is planning to increase the strength of the Indian Army by almost 100,000 soldiers over the next five years. It would also be the largest increase in deployment along the Chinese border since the aftermath of the 1962 war. It will also focus on Indian islands with the larger view of securing maritime routes crisis-crossing the Indian Ocean. As regards the Indian military build-up against Beijing, on May 31, 2009, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 kilometers south of the Chinese border-Aksai China area. New Delhi has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads on the Sino-Indian frontiers. With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008 India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an undersea platform after completing its project in relation to air, land and sea ballistic systems. [U]nder the pretext of the China factor, New Delhi and Israel, with the tactical support of the sole superpower, are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals. ==== Although India and China agreed to avoid flare-ups along their border on January 17 this year, yet despite 15 rounds of talks the issue still remains unsettled owing to Indian obstinacy. The countries had fought a bloody war in 1962 over a disputed border. Indian hegemonic designs to dominate the region can well be judged from its plans to spend huge amounts on a military build-up and purchases of sophisticated arms and weapons from France, Germany, Israel, Russia and the U.S. Indian leaders openly state that India will defend its national interests beyond South Asia. On the one hand, Indian rulers assertively advocate regional peace, but on the other they mislead the world by cunningly projecting their threat perceptions. These are certainly a source of concern, especially for China and Pakistan, which are particular targets of India's duplicity. In this regard, in November, 2011 the Chinese media hit back at India's proposed military build-up on the border and its recent relationship with East Asian nations such as Japan and Vietnam at the cost of Beijing. In this respect, China's official newspaper People's Daily recently reported: "East China Sea and South China Sea issues continue to expose some countries' envious, jealous and hateful attitude towards China...India has begun to consider Beijing as an opponent." While China's state-run news agency Xinhua warned, "if India intends to antagonise its neighbour by taking China as an imaginary enemy and gets unwisely involved in affairs which fall within others' backyards, it would hold its national strategies as hostage and put at stake its own national interests." Today, China is India's biggest trading partner with which New Delhi has signed a number of agreements in various fields, but with American support it is playing a double game with Beijing. In this context, in the middle of October, 2011, as part of its second phase of military expansion against China, the Indian government has given the go-ahead for the deployment of BrahMos cruise missiles in Arunachal Pradesh along the Chinese border. With a range of 290 kilometers, these missiles are being deployed to improve India's military reach into the Tibet Autonomous Region. The three BrahMos missile regiments raised so far have also been deployed in the western sector to counter the presumed threat of Pakistan. India's new scheme has coincided with the revival of a propaganda campaign that China has allegedly been deploying troops in Pakistan's areas of Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir and FATA. Both Beijing and Islamabad have denied this false accusation. Besides, as part of its military adventure against China, the Indian government is planning to increase the strength of the Indian Army by almost 100,000 soldiers over the next five years. It would also be the largest increase in deployment along the Chinese border since the aftermath of the 1962 war. It will also focus on Indian islands with the larger view of securing maritime routes crisis-crossing the Indian Ocean. As regards the Indian military build-up against Beijing, on May 31, 2009, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 kilometers south of the Chinese border-Aksai China area. New Delhi has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads on the Sino-Indian frontier. On April 20, 2008 The Times of India had written, "By having a full-fledged airstrip at DBO, India will be able to rush in troops and supplies to the region during emergencies." The paper quoted Western Air Command Chief Air Marshal P K Barbora revealing, "Yes, we also have plans to land our AN-32 transport aircraft at DBO. It is part of Indian Air Force plans to improve air maintenance at the far-flung posts in the region". In this connection, Defence Ministry planners are working on building additional airfields and increasing troops, raising two new mountain divisions to be deployed along the 4,057-kilometer Line of Actual Control (LAC). With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008 India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an undersea platform after completing its project in relation to air, land and sea ballistic systems. Notably, Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta had disclosed that New Delhi "will soon float tenders to acquire six submarines." Mehta also accused Beijing, saying, "The Indian Navy would keep a close watch on the movements of Chinese submarines which are operating out of an underground base in the South China Sea" and "wish to enter the Indian Ocean." However, under the pretext of the China factor, New Delhi and Israel, with the tactical support of the sole superpower, are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals. It is worthy of mention that in October, 2011 India hosted the leaders of Vietnam and Myanmar, highlighting its intentions it is following regarding its 'Look East Policy' as it is building close security and economic relations with these two nations in East and Southeast Asia. In fact, New Delhi designed this policy to establish its influence in the region, while the main aims behind it are to sabotage the interests of Beijing. During her trip to New Delhi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 20, 2011 urged India to be more assertive in Asia, saying that the country should play more of a leadership role. She explained, "India has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific." Clinton further said, "India should play the role as a US ally in regional forums such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)." It is noteworthy that on October 15, 2010 Indian Army Chief General VK Singh had openly claimed that China and Pakistan posed a major threat to India's security, while calling for an upgrade of the country's defences. Indian former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had also raised similar allegations. So, under the pretext of presumed threats from China and Pakistan, New Delhi, which signed an agreement on civil nuclear technology with the US in 2008, has been acting upon the direction of the latter to counterbalance China and destabilize Pakistan along with Iran. Particularly, US clandestine aims could be judged from the fact that on November 2, 2011 America agreed to sell India the most expensive — the new - F-35 fighter jets. In a report to the US Congress, the Pentagon said, "We believe US aircraft such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)...to be the best in the world", referring to the radar-evading F-35 jet. Unlike India, Pakistan mostly prefers to develop its own arms, equipment and aircraft with the joint cooperation of China. For example, the JF-17/FC-1 is designed as a co-operative venture between Pakistan and China to replace the Chinese A-5C (massively modified MiG-19), F-7P (MiG-21+), and French Mirage 3/5 aircraft. In this connection, defence analysts opine that unlike the US F-35 fighter jet, the JF-17/FC-1 fighter is better due to its quick system of surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition. Nevertheless, recently, India also decided on a major purchase of US F-16 and F-18 fighters. The Pentagon's government-to- government program of foreign military sales to India has included C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons and specialised tactical equipments. Besides acquisition of arms and weapons from other western countries, America, which emerged as a potential military supplier to India, has lifted sanctions on New Delhi in order to import nuclear technology. In fact, Pakistan's province of Balochistan, where China has invested billion of dollars to develop Gwadar seaport, infuriates both the US and India. With the help of India, the US desires to control Balochistan as an independent state in containing China and restraining Iran. It is due to these reasons that Washington and New Delhi are creating instability in Pakistan by backing Baloch separatists to complete their hidden strategic agenda. In this regard, the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) gets logistic support from India, while another separatist group, Jundollah (God's soldiers), is also harming the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years their militants kidnapped and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan, while committing other subversive acts in the province and in Iran's province of Sistan-Baluchistan. Tehran directly implicated the American CIA for patronage and funding of that type of terrorist attack. It is of particular attention that in May 1998, when India detonated five nuclear tests, the then-Defense Minister George Fernandes declared publicly that "China is India's potential threat No. 1." India, which successfully tested the Agni-111 missile in May of 2007, has been extending its range to target all the big cities of China. Nonetheless, with the support of the US, India's military adventure against China is likely to destabilse the whole of Asia because of its chain reaction. *Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations Email: sajjad_logic@ yahoo.com - 7.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST) http://rustavi2. com/news/ news_text. php?id_news= 44509&pg= 1&im=main& ct=0&wth= Rustavi 2 January 31, 2012 Labour Party comments on Obama-Saakashvili meeting `Georgia`s future is decided in Washington,` the leader of the Georgian Labour Party Shalva Natelashvili announced at a briefing today while commenting on the meeting of the Georgian and U.S. presidents. Natelashvili disapproved of the agreement between Saakashvili and Obama. The opposition leader does not like the agreements on free trade relations and military cooperation with the United States. `This is the answer to the cynics - why we hold rallies in Washington against the dictatorship - not because we want fun or have spare time, but because, all the misfortune that we face afterwards are planned there,` Natelashvili said. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 8.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST) http://www.b92. net/eng/news/ crimes-article. php?yyyy= 2012&mm=01& dd=31&nav_ id=78556 Tanjug News Agency January 31, 2012 Serb homes robbed, set on fire in Kosovo GNJILANE: Two houses owned by Serbis in the village of Cernica near Gnjilane were robbed and set on fire last night, it has been confirmed. A Kosovo police (KPS) spokesperson told Tanjug news agency that nobody was inside the buildings during the incident. But Ismet Hasani "could not say what caused the fire", adding that it was promptly put out by firemen. The spokesperson however noted that KPS units investigated the scene "and opened the case". Local Serb media in that part of the province are reporting that the homes belonged to Ljubiša Spasić and Stanko Stanojević, who currently live and work in Switzerland along with their families. Cernica resident Srđan Menković said the homes were first robbed, while the fire "most likely came later and was the work of arsonists". "Almost everything was taken from the houses, they stole everything. It is getting worse by the day, robberies are ever more frequent, while police either cannot or will not do anything about it," said Milenković. Some 150 Serb families lived in the village prior to the war in 1999, while only about 30 remain today. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 9.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST) http://rustavi2. com/news/ news_text. php?id_news= 44513&pg= 1&im=main& ct=0&wth= Rustavi 2 January 31, 2012 Prime Minister hails Obama-Saakashvili agreement Members of the Cabinet of Ministers commented on the meeting of the Georgian and U.S. presidents held in Washington yesterday. The government assembled at the session in the Government`s Chancellery today. ... Prime Minister Nika Gilauri...hailed the statement by the U.S. president to continue support to Georgia`s defense sector, reinforcement of its defensibility, which is very important for the region. `The last factor, which should be emphasized, is the support to Georgia`s NATO aspirations. This is particularly notable prior to the Chicago NATO summit, where the support of the United States will be very important,` Nika Gilauri said. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 10.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST) http://www.plenglis h.com/index. php?option= com_content& task=view& id=473459& Itemid=1 Prensa Latina January 31, 2012 Syrian Troops Thwart Armed Infiltration from Turkey Damascus: On Tuesday Syrian troops prevented another infiltration attempt by an armed group from Turkey in the northwestern province of Idleb, the second in three days, according to authorities. The action took place in the border area of al-Janoudieh, in the context of an offensive against those bands, launched by Army troops in several places, particularly in the province of Hama, in areas of the countryside of Damascus and in Idleb, said the national media quoting official reports. According to the sources, Army troops killed one of those trying to infiltrate and arrested another while the rest managed to flee back to Turkey, where armed men are being trained in two camps to be infiltrated into Syria, as regional politicians have denounced. It was also reported that a group of unidentified armed men this morning attacked a bus carrying workers of the Maaret al-Numan spinning mill, also in Idleb. The driver was shot and three passengers were wounded. Also in Idleb, men wearing masks kidnapped the head of the Palace of Justice executive board as he was heading to his office, while armed men opened fire at people attending a police funeral in Sarakeb and killed two officers and wounded another two. Idleb province and the city of Homs are currently the worst-hit areas of terrorist violence in the wake of the dismantling of armed groups in the outskirts of Damascus, where they had been operating for the past few weeks. the SANA news agency reported from Homs that one of those armed bands blew up an oil pipeline in the al-Sutaniya area, causing a big fire that was put under control by firefighters and by turning off fuel pumps. This is the second such attack after a bomb damaged a gas pipeline between Homs and Banyas, near the town of al-Rabieh in the Tal Kalakh municipality on Monday, causing a spill of 460,000 cubic meters of gas. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 11.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:23 pm (PST) http://www.plenglis h.com/index. php?option= com_content& task=view& id=473325& Itemid=1 Prensa Latina January 31, 2012 UK Warship to Be Deployed on Falkland Islands London: After increased tensions with Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, the United Kingdom will send one of its most modern warships to this archipelago in the coming months, said the Ministry of Defence. The destroyer HMS Dauntless will be deployed in the coming months in the South Atlantic Ocean to replace the frigate HMS Montrose. While London called the sending of the ship as "routine measure" of a patrol boat replaced by another, the move exacerbates frictions with Argentina after a verbal escalation between the two states due to controversial British oil exploration in the area. Argentina's claims are based on the British exploitation of natural resources in the South American platform, whose starting point is the Falkland Islands, seized by the UK in 1833 and the cause of a military confrontation between the two nations in 1982. UK forces in the South Atlantic archipelago include four modern Typhoon aircraft, an air base with radar, a patrol frigate, and a garrison of 1,700 soldiers, almost equal in number to the local population. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 12.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:38 pm (PST) http://www.eucom. mil/article/ 23057/combined- endeavor- 2012-planning- begins-in- slovak-republic U.S. European Command January 30, 2012 Combined Endeavor 2012 planning begins in Slovak Republic BRATISLAVA, Slovak Republic: The week-long initial planning conference for exercise Combined Endeavor 2012 (CE12), U.S. European Command's largest communications interoperability exercise, began today with more than 250 participants attending to begin planning. During the opening ceremony, Robert Ondrejcsak, PhD, State Secretary of the Slovak Republic Ministry of Defence, welcomed national representatives and planners from 35 countries and organizations, while highlighting the exercise's value to the Slovak Republic. "Slovak Armed Forces have participated in Combined Endeavor since 1995, the very beginning of the exercise. Combined Endeavor exercise was, is and will stay one of the main tools for testing interoperability of our new Computer Information Systems equipment... with our NATO and Partnership for Peace allies. We believe that Combined Endeavor has promoted the development of our CIS capabilities in the right direction." Combined Endeavor is a EUCOM-sponsored, multinational initiative intended to encourage interoperability and information exchange among nations... During the IPC, participants will begin developing network architecture that supports the exercise's operational construct and provides pathways for testing interoperable capabilities of the combined systems. ... CE12 will take place in Grafenwöhr, Germany, Sept. 6-20. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 13.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:38 pm (PST) http://www.usafe. af.mil/news/ story.asp? id=123287633U.S. Air Forces in Europe January 27, 2012 U.S. Air Forces in Europe turns 70 By Charles Newell U.S. Air Forces in Europe History Office -With the command now marking its seventh decade of active service, USAFE continues to provide combat ready forces, maintains vital access to three continents, and assures friends and allies while building their operational capacity. During 2011, these unique attributes came to the forefront during U.S. support to operations in Libya. RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany: Jan. 28, 2012 marks U.S. Air Forces in Europe's 70th birthday. Throughout the year USAFE and Team Ramstein will honor its mission, people and heritage by reminding everyone of USAFE's accomplishments - then and now - from the Second World War, through the Cold War, and in today's expeditionary era. Born out of necessity during the World War II, the command is the second oldest major command in the Air Force. Throughout its history, USAFE has remained a critical element of U.S. policy, strategy and presence in Europe. The War Department originally designated the command as Headquarters, Eighth Air Force, Jan. 19, 1942, as United States Strategic Air Forces Europe, from Feb. 22, 1944, and as its current designation, United States Air Forces Europe, on Aug. 7, 1945. Each redesignation represented a change of mission and responsibility; from the buildup of forces and initial operations in the United Kingdom, to the command of daylight strategic bombing, to follow-on operations in Germany after the war. ... The Cold War era, 1946-1991, witnessed continual modernization and expansion in direct response to the...Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. Soon after the Cold War began, the command directed the Berlin Airlift...and validating the newly created U.S. Air Force. The Korean War, the erection of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan all challenged USAFE's mission... [C]ombat readiness in direct support of NATO was USAFE's top priority in those year... The command fought its second war in 1991 as part of the coalition opposing Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. USAFE provided critical en route support to units deploying to Persian Gulf-hosted forward bases for B-52s and KC-135s, and contributed vital logistics and maintenance support for those deploying forces. The bulk of Joint Task Force Proven Force, which opened a second front against Iraq from Turkey, came primarily from USAFE's ranks. The command deployed 15 percent of its people, 55 percent of its planes, and 33 percent of its munitions to Proven Force to join the fight, where its people fought as an integral part of coalition forces. USAFE pilots accounted for 15 of 33 coalition air-to-air victories before the ceasefire in April 1991. ... Closer to home, USAFE reached out to the new Central and Eastern European democracies, paving the way for NATO's 1993 "Partnership for Peace" initiative and the acceptance of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as new members in 1999. By the mid-1990s, the command was heavily involved in Yugoslavia, which had erupted into civil war in the summer of 1991. USAFE C-130s flew relief supplies into Sarajevo... When NATO began Operation Deny Flight to enforce a United Nations no-fly zone over Bosnia in April 1993, USAFE was there. Its pilots fired NATO's first shots, downing four Krajina Serb aircraft violating the no-fly zone on Feb. 28, 1994. A year and a half later, USAFE was a mainstay in NATO's Operation Deliberate Force that...enforced a NATO heavy-weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo... USAFE, as part of the newly expanded NATO, went to war once again on March 24, 1999 when the alliance launched air attacks on Yugoslavia.. .In the 78-day campaign known as Operation Allied Force, USAFE people and aircraft flew a significant number of the nearly 35,000 sorties that forced Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to ask for a cease-fire, evacuate his forces from Kosovo, and permit an international peacekeeping force into the province... After the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, USAFE responded to the Global War on Terrorism. The command played a key role in...the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom. USAFE people and aircraft also made critical contributions to the campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The command also contributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, which toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in the spring of 2003. With the command now marking its seventh decade of active service, USAFE continues to provide combat ready forces, maintains vital access to three continents, and assures friends and allies while building their operational capacity. During 2011, these unique attributes came to the forefront during U.S. support to operations in Libya...USAFE was able to...provide on-hand combat forces as part of a coalition of European and other partner nations...After NATO assumed responsibility for operations in Libya in April 2011, USAFE continued its support. ... Happy 70th USAFE! ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 14.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:01 pm (PST) http://www.hurriyet dailynews. com/turkey- aims-to-increase -ballistic- missile-ranges. aspx?pageID= 238&nID=12731& NewsCatID= 345 Hürriyet Daily News February 1, 2012 Turkey aims to increase ballistic missile ranges ANKARA: Turkey aims to build ballistic missiles with a range of 2,500 kilometers within the next two years, Turkish officials have said... Professor Yücel Altınbaşak, head of Turkey's State Scientific Research Institute (TÜBİTAK), recently told reporters that the decision to build the ballistic missiles was made at a recent meeting of the High Board of Technology and in line with a request from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Altınbaşak said TÜBİTAK had already produced and delivered a missile with a range of 500 kilometers to the Turkish military and added that the missile had displayed a mere five-meter deviation from its target in field tests. In the next phase of the program this year, TÜBİTAK will first test the 1,500-kilometer missile before heading for the final goal of 2,500 kilometers. Altınbaşak said building missiles with a range of 2,500-kilometer was a "realistic target for Turkey." ... A Middle East political expert said Turkey's decision to produce cruise and ballistic missiles may mark a change in threat and security design perceptions. "Why would the Turks need these missiles? Where will they use them? Against which threats? It is also intriguing that Turkey, which seeks a modern air force with deterrent firepower, is going along the path many rogue states with no modern air force capabilities have gone," the specialist said. ... ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 15.
-
Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:03 pm (PST) http://tribune. com.pk/story/ 330198/analysis- the-us-is- acting-over- and-above- the-law/ Express Tribune February 1, 2012 Analysis: The US is acting over and above the law By Niaz A Shah While drone attacks might have some tactical advantage against al Qaeda and its affiliates, as is being argued, they are against the UN Charter, the law of armed conflict and international human rights law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the "threat or use of force" against another state. The Charter allows for the use of force in only one form, ie, under Article 42, wherein the Security Council may allow the use of force as an enforcement measure when all peaceful means are exhausted. There, however, is one exception to this rule: States are allowed to use force in self-defence against an armed attack. This is a temporary right, ie, until the Security Council is activated to respond to an armed attack – an issue of international peace and security. The US has traditionally relied on the argument of the right of self-defence. However, al Qaeda and its affiliates are non-state actors – hence three conditions must be satisfied before the use of force against them can be justified. The first condition is that there must be an 'armed attack' against the US which necessitates the use of force in self-defence. The key question here is: What constitutes an armed attack? The severity and scale of damage done by the attack of a non-state actor must be such that it would amount to an armed attack had it been carried out by the regular forces of a state. The second condition is that there must a link between the non-state actor and the host state. In Nicaragua v. USA, 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the host state must exercise an "effective control" over the non-state actor to trigger the right to use force in self-defence. The ICJ reaffirmed the test of "effective control" in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 (paragraphs 399 and 401). Article 8 of the 2001 International Law Commission's Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, reflecting customary law, states that the "conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct". The factual link between the host and non-state actor must be established before resorting to use force. In addition, the host state shall either not be willing or unable to control the non-state actor. Once these two conditions are met, then proportionate use of force is permitted – which is the third condition. Let us turn to the US claim of self-defence against al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan. First, Pakistan does not have effective control over al Qaeda or its affiliates. On the contrary, al Qaeda and its affiliates, such as the Pakistani Taliban, are banned under the terrorism legislation in Pakistan. The security forces of Pakistan are actively engaged in fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates. Pakistan clearly does not have "effective control" over al Qaeda and its affiliates and their acts cannot be attributed to Pakistan. The argument that the Pakistan is not willing to do enough to suppress armed groups inside its borders is not convincing: Hundreds of Taliban fighters and Pakistani troops are killed in the ongoing armed conflict. Evidence also suggests that, very often, civilians were killed and property destroyed in access of "concrete and direct military advantage", i.e. violating the customary principle of proportionality. The law of armed conflict allows killing and being killed in the battlefield by combatants – but the CIA, a civilian organ of the state, targets individuals away from the battlefield who they regard either as terrorists or supporters of terrorism. The CIA has virtually become a judge, a jury and an executioner violating international human rights law. Let there be no doubt: Drone attacks violate the UN Charter, the principle of proportionality and international human rights law. The author is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Hull, United Kingdom. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 16.
-
Wed Feb 1, 2012 5:38 am (PST) http://rt.com/ usa/news/ drones-civilian- death-obama- 187/ RT February 1, 2012 Hundreds of slaughtered civilians isn't a 'huge number' for Obama On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama became the first president to host a virtual town hall live on the Internet. While that might be a feat worthy of the record books, President Obama did something else during his address that America has become accustomed to: he lied to the world. Speaking Monday during a live web-chat hosted by Google, the president took on a series of issues submitted by the American people. Over the span of 45 minutes, President Obama addressed the Stop Online Piracy Act while refusing to side with either end of the argument, admitted to the world that he isn't all that swell of a dancer and took a query from a professional puppeteer. In between ignoring the real issues or offering any sort of solid solution to the nation's biggest problems, the president did put something rather important out for the world to ponder: America's ongoing drone missions aren't really all that bad. If you ask anyone outside of the Oval Office — or especially America — they might tell you otherwise. Tackling a question posed on drone strikes, President Obama defended the ongoing missions on Monday, saying they were necessary to target terrorists in a most effective manner. "For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we're already engaging in," the president said on the topic of drones. While an argument could easily be made that operating drone missions in lieu of putting boots on the ground is best for the US Armed Forces, the president put a lot on the line Monday when he downplayed the result of the strikes. Those drone attacks, carried out by unmanned aircraft controlled thousands of miles away, don't do a lot of harm, said the president. According to Obama, drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties" and he added that it's "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash." How small is that not-so huge number? If you ask anyone outside of the American intelligence community, they'll tell you it is in the hundreds. But what's a few hundred civilian deaths, right? Obama suggested that continuing the drone program would not be detrimental to the safety of foreign citizens, but studies conducted outside of the US say otherwise. Last summer, the UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism argued that since America began drone strikes, at least 385 civilians had been executed in US-led attacks. Of those statistics, the Bureau added that around half of the dead were children under the age of 18. If you don't take the word of foreign reporter's, even American intelligence can confirm that the "not a huge number" statistic might be a bit of an exaggeration. One senior US official speaking on condition of anonymity added to CNN last year that CIA drone strikes had taken the lives of 50 civilians in all. As drone strikes go unreported and deaths unaccounted for, the actual number, unfortunately, is probably much higher than what either the CIA or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can come up with. In a single strike last March, 26 Pakistanis were killed during a US strike over Pakistan. Once all deaths were accounted for, it was revealed that over a dozen of the deaths in that single raid were suffered by innocent civilians. When the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released their findings last year, they said that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the US was actually reporting. Between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties. Which, if you ask President Obama, is not a huge number. If 775 isn't a huge number, than 56 is practically a fraction. That's the number of children executed by US drones in the first 20 months of the Obama administration. "Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many," responded Unicef to the news at the time. In 2009 alone, almost 600 civilians were killed on the ground in Afghanistan, and the United Nations put 60 percent of that figure as a direct result of airstrikes, drone or otherwise. In Pakistan, civilians say they are terrified of the robotic planes and the damage that they have already done. "There was not a single Taliban militant in Pakistan before 9/11 but since we joined this war, we are facing acts of terrorism, bombing and drone strikes," Movement for Justice leader Imran Khan told the press in 2011. In Libya, where the United States never even engaged in an official war, according to Obama, American troops launched 145 drone strikes in an attempt to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in a matter of months. As with most drone missions, the Department of Defense has not released any official statistics on what casualties were caused by the strikes. Regardless of what damage a drone strike can have on enemy insurgents, experts say that the toll visited on civilians is several times that of militants. In a 2009 report from the Brookings Institute, Senior Fellow Daniel L Byman wrote that "for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died." In Pakistan where drone strikes have become practically commonplace, civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. Saadullah, a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes. Asghar Khan, an elder in Islamabad that also spoke to BBC, said three of his relatives were also shot down in airstrikes. "My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008," said Khan. "They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban." A decade after the US began so-called cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, anti-American sentiments continue to grow as do the number of casualties. "When we intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us," counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen tells the Brookings Institute. Now as the US puts surveillance drones over the skies of Iraq even after that war has officially ended, yet another country is becoming concerned that drones will drop bombs on their own civilians. "We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists," 37-year-old café owner Hisham Mohammed Salah told the New York Times just this week. "Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext." Under the Pentagon's new revised budget, the US will phase out around 100,000 military staffers while adding droves of drones to its already established arsenal of robotic planes. Will drones soon become the United States' not-so-secret weapon and phase out its Armed Forces personnel entirely? It's not out of the question. After all, a drone strike authorized by Obama last year led to the death of two American citizens with alleged terrorist ties. Don't worry, though. Obama says these things are kept on a tight leash. Who actually pulls on that is as good of a guess as anyone's, though. In November, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the "signature" strikes that account for most of the CIA's drone missions only end up on the desk of the president after they are carried out. The US must only inform Pakistan of those strikes, by the way, if they believe the death toll will exceed 20. Which really isn't that big of a number either. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 17.
-
Wed Feb 1, 2012 5:38 am (PST) http://www.b92. net/eng/news/ crimes-article. php?yyyy= 2012&mm=02& dd=01&nav_ id=78571 Tanjug News Agency February 1, 2012 NATO "thwarted" organ trade investigation BELGRADE: Former Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has stated that NATO thwarted the investigation into the human organ trafficking in Kosovo. She added that the real truth could be revealed only in an UN-led probe. "The international community had to react after the report by (Council of Europe Special Rapporteur) Dick Marty, but the real truth about these allegations could only be revealed in an UN-led probe," Del Ponte told Belgrade-based weekly Nedeljnik. She added that there was a lack of political will to resolve this case because the situation in Kosovo was still very fragile. When asked whether she felt responsible for the destruction of evidence from the yellow house late in 2005, Del Ponte said that this was a big mistake and that it was done without previous consultations with her. "I was really shocked when I learned from the media that the evidence was destroyed. However, I do not feel responsible as I was not authorized to lead the investigation," the former prosecutor was quoted as saying. Del Ponte said that she knows who ordered the destruction of evidence as she was in constant contact with her successor Serge Brammertz, but that this information should now be investigated by the office of the Hague Tribunal chief prosecutor. When asked about the fact that she had an insight into the UNMIK confidential report on crimes in the yellow house back in 2004 but the investigation was suspended, Del Ponte said that the prosecution was not able to continue the probe due to numerous obstacles. "NATO and UNMIK did not allow us to see important files, while Albania did not let us enter its territory and inspect graves," she noted. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 18.
-
Wed Feb 1, 2012 5:53 am (PST) http://news. xinhuanet. com/english/ world/2012- 02/01/c_13138629 8.htm Xinhua News Agency February 1, 2012 13 killed in U.S. drone strike in NW Pakistan ISLAMABAD: At least 13 people were killed when a U.S. drone launched three missile strikes in the Orakzai region of Pakistan's northwest tribal belt on Wednesday, local media reported. According to a report by local TV channel Geo, the attack was launched in the wee hours of the morning when a U.S. drone fired three missiles at a militants' hideout in the Darand Shekhan area of the upper Orakzai agency... Wednesday morning's drone strike came just one day after Foreign Office Spokesperson Abdul Basit stated that drone attacks are unacceptable to the Pakistani government because they are unlawful and counterproductive. This is the fourth strike of its kind in the northwestern tribal area of Pakistan and the first of its kind in the Orakzai agency since the beginning of 2012. To date, 27 people have been killed and several others injured in 11 missile strikes launched by U.S. drones. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 19.
-
Wed Feb 1, 2012 9:10 am (PST) http://news. xinhuanet. com/english/ world/2012- 02/01/c_13138515 7.htm Xinhua News Agency February 1, 2012 Russia warns against foreign forces meddling in Syria's internal affairs ==== "We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force." "We will not stand for any sanctions resolutions or using the council's toolbox so as to fuel conflict or possibly justify any foreign intervention in the future." The Security Council met on Tuesday afternoon on the current situation in Syria, with the Arab League and Western countries urging the 15-nation council to adopt their joint draft resolution, which demands what they call a "political transition" in the Middle East country. ==== UNITED NATIONS: Russia on Tuesday warned foreign countries against meddling in the internal affairs of Syria, saying that "the Syrian crisis can only be resolved within the Syrian-led political process." The statement came as Vitaly Churkin, the Russian permanent representative to the United Nations, was addressing an open meeting of the UN Security Council on the current situation in Syria. "The solution to the crisis can be found only through a Syrian-led, inclusive political process," Churkin said. "If all key players of the international community were to concentrate their efforts on implementing these provisions we are convinced that the crisis would long be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case." "We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force," he said. "No, it should be fostering dialogue so as to seek an optimally effective and smooth resolution with a view to a cessation of violence and establishing a Syrian-led inclusive political process." "Russia, which has enjoyed close, friendly contacts with the Syrian people and the Arab world from the very beginning, fought to ensure that the Syrian people would be able to decide for themselves without bloodshed and violence and set a course, a format for necessary social, economic, and political reforms," he said. Russia has asked representatives of the Syrian government and opposition to enter into peace talks in Moscow to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, which broke out in March 2011. "We appeal to the Syrian government and all opposition groups to send their representatives to Moscow on an agreed-upon timeline to conduct informal contacts without preconditions, " he said. "This would allow for the Syrian parties to discuss many issues on the national agenda without any limitations, in particular the task of preparing an inter-Syrian dialogue under the LAS (League of Arab States) aegis." "Moreover, we suggest that in drawing up its decision the council be guided by the principle of non-imposition, " he said. "We will not stand for any sanctions resolutions or using the council's toolbox so as to fuel conflict or possibly justify any foreign intervention in the future." "But this is not the matter at hand, the council cannot impose the parameters for an internal political settlement," he said. "It simply does not have the mandate to do so under the (UN) Charter." The Security Council met on Tuesday afternoon on the current situation in Syria, with the Arab League and Western countries urging the 15-nation council to adopt their joint draft resolution, which demands what they call a "political transition" in the Middle East country. Moscow voiced its strong opposition to the Arab-European draft resolution, which was tabled at the Security Council by Morocco on Friday, saying the draft resolution was not conducive to a proper settlement of the current Syrian political crisis. The draft resolution, jointly drawn up by Arab states, Britain, France and Germany, wants the Security Council to back an Arab League plan which calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy so that new elections can be held. The United States, France, Germany and Britain asked the Security Council to take urgent actions to address the current situation in Syria. Damascus has accused foreign and terrorist elements of being behind the months-old turmoil in the country. On Tuesday, Churkin told the Security Council that consensus among the 15 council members is possible and necessary. "We found some of the elements of our text in it, and this gives rise to hope," he said. "We hope that the council will come to a consensus on the Syrian issue, as that is not only possible but also necessary." ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== Share Photos photos and more online. Dog Groups Share pictures & stories about dogs. Y! Groups blog for the latest scoop on Groups. Need to Reply? Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.  |
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comment makers are requested to be civilised and refined and refrain from unparliamentary language.Offer comments with a universal perspective rather than a narrow perspective.Personal remarks should not be made and narrow minds should stay away from making the unnecessary exercise of making comments.