Hina Rabbani Khar (HRK) visited India on her first assignment after being appointed Foreign minister (FM) of Pakistan. She is the youngest FM of Pakistan at 34, ZAB was 35 when he was appointed by Ayub Khan.
An interesting observation from across the border on HRK, published in Pakistan Observer.
By M D Nalapat
Why would an attractive 34-year old ever be made a Cabinet minister, that too in the crucial Foreign Affairs portfolio? Conventional wisdom opines that Hina Rabbani Khar has been appointed Foreign Minister of Pakistan merely because the generals in Islamabad and their civilian advisors saw the need for a fresh, moderate and attractive face to represent Pakistan to the world. As a consequence, there were low expectations of the minister, who was seen as a foreign policy neophyte closely guided by the military establishment. After two days, this view has been replaced with genuine respect for a tough negotiator who sticks to her stand, albeit in a civilised manner, rather than in the table-thumping tradition of Nikita Khruschev. Hina Rabbani Khar has been dominating television space in India, giving interview after interview to various channels, in each of which her sincerity in seeking a durable peace between India and Pakistan has been conveyed.
Within Pakistan, there exists a significant constituency that seeks to return the country to the period under Ayub Khan, when it grew at twice the rate of India. The next shot at normalcy came during the era of Pervez Musharraf. Although he was as aware as the present Foreign Minister of Pakistan about the fact that normal relations with India are essential for speedy economic development in the country, Musharraf’s desire to play to several contradictory galleries at the same time robbed his policies of the consistency needed for a satisfactory outcome. While there were brief windows of opportunity for peace, none of these were realised, mainly because the establishment in Pakistan has thus far seemed unaware of the fact that the India of today is very different from the country ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi for the first two years (1984-86) of his rule. The three were powerful enough to impose their will over the rest of the country, unlike their successors, who are too weak to ensure a similar obedience to their wishes. Jawaharlal Nehru was able to brush aside the opposition of Deputy Prime Minister Vallabbhai Patel in ordering the Indian army to cease fire when it was moving towards the taking over of the entire territory of Kashmir. Nehru preferred to go by the views of independent India’s first Governor-General, Louis Mountabatten, and the British officers of the Indian military rather than go by the demand of General K M Cariappa that the army ought to be given a further six months to clear Kashmir of the invaders. Interestingly, around this time, Mahatma Gandhi went on a fast in order to force the government to hand over a large sum of money to Pakistan. Prime Minister Nehru secretly favoured this course, but was opposed by Patel, who pointed out that to give money to Pakistan was to assist Rawalpindi in waging its war against India. However, once the Mahatma intervened, Patel had no option but to fall in line, to the delight of Nehru. Ever since the Kashmir ceasefire and Nehru’s decision to refer the issue to the UN, Nehru functioned as the all-in-all of the Congress Party and the government, implementing his personal views as policy.
Indira Gandhi took a decision at Simla four decades ago to surrender all the gains of the 1971 war with Pakistan, in the hope that the gesture would ensure that the “peace constituency” in the neighbouring country could then be made strong enough to challenge the “conflict constituency”. This was the argument used by her closest advisor ( a Kashmiri Pandit like herself), P N Haksar. The left-leaning, brilliant Haksar was entranced by the vision of peace and cooperation between India and Pakistan, and he forgot the hurt done to the psyche of Rawalpindi by the detaching of Bangladesh. With nothing other than an oral assurance by Prime Minister Z A Bhutto that the Line of Control in Kashmir would get converted into the international boundary, Indira Gandhi forced the Indian military to relinquish the territorial and other gains of the campaign. This was possible only because of the awesome power that she had over the Congress Party and the government.
Manmohan Singh seeks peace with Pakistan with an intensity equal to that of P N Haksar. Those close to the PM say that left to himself, he would withdraw military forces from Siachen, open up the Line of Control ,and give autonomy to the Kashmir Valley on a scale that would be unprecedented in India. Sonia Gandhi would most likely support him, as she numbers several Pakistanis among her friends, and is a dedicated peacenik. Had both Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi the influence of Jawaharlal, Indira or Rajiv, this is probably what would have happened, to the delight of Islamabad, Brussels, Beijing and Washington. However, the fact is that their grip on power is tenous, and they lack the strength to force through the sort of compromises that were carried out in the past by their Nehru family predecessors. Those within the Pakistan establishment - and their friends in other countries - who hope for an outcome similar to those which took place during 1947-86 are ignoring the reality that the policy dynamic in India has become much more complex. Unless at least 85% of the political spectrum agree to a compromise, it would be political suicide to attempt to carry it out. This is the reason why there are still Indian troops at Siachen.
Given the change in the polity of India, the only realistic outcome in the India-Pakistan-China matrix is to accept the status quo as the international frontier. In the case of Kashmir, special arrangements could be made to ensure that the desire of the Valley Sunnis to live in a sharia-compliant territory get fulfilled, without any change in the legal position of the state. However, it is only by slow degrees that policymakers elsewhere will begin to comprehend ground realities in India, and take decisions based on them,rather than on an India that has long since become history. The significance of Foreign Minister
Khar’s visit is that it was the first time that the actual meetings took place without the posturing and histrionics that usually accompanies India-Pakistan meetings. Her businesslike and result-oriented style has given the lie to those who accuse Foreign Minister Khar of inexperience and lack of knowledge. In fact, she put forward the Pakistan point of view with aplomb, especially her aside that the 26/11 case in Pakistan was proceeding much faster than the Samjhauta Express blast case was in India. Although she annoyed her hosts considerably, Hina Rabbani Khar made sure that the first Indian citizens that she interacted with were those who have long been firm that they wish that they themselves, and their home state of Kashmir, be part of Pakistan.
The Khar visit has shown that differences of opinion need not stand in the way of civilised conduct of business between India and Pakistan. Indeed, there is much in Pakistan that is attractive to India, including aspects of Sindhi, Baluchi and Punjabi culture. For core differences to be satisfactorily tackled, the “non-core” issues have first to get settled. The visit of the Pakistan delegation, headed by the youthful but formidable Foreign Minister, was an indication that in the country, a new generation has emerged that seeks to get liberated from the shackles of the past, and which seeks a modus vivendi with a country that can be a natural partner. In Hina Rabbani Khar, the people of India saw a new Pakistan, one very different from the country portrayed in the international media. The question is: will the Dead Hand of the Past choke off these bamboo shoots of rapprochement, or will this finally give way to the needs of the new generation in both countries, which is peace?
—The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.
Friday, July 29, 2011
"Terrorism is violence done by Muslims only"
Views Before News
The 22 July massacre by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway clearly shows that extremism and terrorism cannot be branded with any paticular community or religion. But Western media, lead by the US media, portrayed those blasts and shooting as acts of violence committed by an individual extremist; some even described him a madman.
This excerpt from NYT, which was later modified, clearly shows the blatant bias of the Western media and their preoccupation with Islam and Muslims. "Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks."
According to West, any act of violence, even if against an invading army, is terrorism if committed by Muslims, whatever legitimate motivation or circumstances might be.
They termed this ghastly act of Andres as a reflection of what Al-Qaeda has nurtured over the years, although the facts and history proves it was not Muslims who started terrorism or who gave birth to fundamentalism.
According to The European Union's Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2010, in 2009 there were "294 failed, foiled, or successfully executed attacks" in six European countries, and ONLY one (out of 294) was perpetrated by "Islamists."
NOW READ THE ARTICLE BY PUBLISHED By Glenn Greenwald IN SALON ON JULY 23 2011
For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.
But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.
"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.
Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.
Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:
Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.
There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.
In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:
How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?
What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whose lengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth reading -- put it:
That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism, until it was revealed that the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it is beyond question that the purpose of their violence is to terrorize civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims who attack purely military targets -- even if the target is an invading army in their own countries -- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, as NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.
One last question: if, as preliminary evidence suggests, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?
UPDATE: The original version of the NYT article was even worse in this regard. As several people noted, here is what the article originally said (papers that carry NYT articles still have the original version):
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks.
"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from al-Qaida," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.
Thus: if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on the inane notion that Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence). The final version of the NYT article inserted the word "Islamic" before "terrorism" ("even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause"), but -- as demonstrated above -- still preserved the necessary inference that only Muslims can be Terrorists. Meanwhile, in the world of reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in 2009 as counted by the EU, a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was perpetrated by "Islamists."
UPDATE II: This article expertly traces and sets forth exactly how the "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, nationalism, ignorance, and shallow credentialism.
The 22 July massacre by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway clearly shows that extremism and terrorism cannot be branded with any paticular community or religion. But Western media, lead by the US media, portrayed those blasts and shooting as acts of violence committed by an individual extremist; some even described him a madman.
This excerpt from NYT, which was later modified, clearly shows the blatant bias of the Western media and their preoccupation with Islam and Muslims. "Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks."
According to West, any act of violence, even if against an invading army, is terrorism if committed by Muslims, whatever legitimate motivation or circumstances might be.
They termed this ghastly act of Andres as a reflection of what Al-Qaeda has nurtured over the years, although the facts and history proves it was not Muslims who started terrorism or who gave birth to fundamentalism.
According to The European Union's Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2010, in 2009 there were "294 failed, foiled, or successfully executed attacks" in six European countries, and ONLY one (out of 294) was perpetrated by "Islamists."
NOW READ THE ARTICLE BY PUBLISHED By Glenn Greenwald IN SALON ON JULY 23 2011
For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.
But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.
"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.
Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.
Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:
Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.
There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.
In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:
How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?
What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whose lengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth reading -- put it:
That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism, until it was revealed that the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it is beyond question that the purpose of their violence is to terrorize civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims who attack purely military targets -- even if the target is an invading army in their own countries -- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, as NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.
One last question: if, as preliminary evidence suggests, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?
UPDATE: The original version of the NYT article was even worse in this regard. As several people noted, here is what the article originally said (papers that carry NYT articles still have the original version):
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks.
"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from al-Qaida," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.
Thus: if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on the inane notion that Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence). The final version of the NYT article inserted the word "Islamic" before "terrorism" ("even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause"), but -- as demonstrated above -- still preserved the necessary inference that only Muslims can be Terrorists. Meanwhile, in the world of reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in 2009 as counted by the EU, a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was perpetrated by "Islamists."
UPDATE II: This article expertly traces and sets forth exactly how the "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, nationalism, ignorance, and shallow credentialism.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Anders Behring Breivik represents Crusaders
A CNN story - You can read ho they downplay a 'christian' act; Imagine a Muslim doing it. The killer clearly states what his motives were. He says he belongs to 'Crusaders' and is influenced by many 'christian terrorist organizations' apart from getting motivation from Geert Wilders. How can you dismiss this ghastly act by terming it as an individual act of someone insane?
Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- Norwegian massacre suspect Anders Behring Breivik was "a little bit surprised" that he was able to pull off a bombing and shooting rampage in which he is accused of killing 76 people in total, his lawyer said Tuesday.
His client was surprised that his plan "succeeded -- succeeded in his mind," attorney Geir Lippestad said at a news conference, adding that Breivik didn't expect to reach Utoya Island, where he is accused of shooting 68 people dead Friday.
Breivik also used drugs before the attacks Friday that were designed to keep him strong and awake, his attorney said.
Lippestad said it was too early to say if Breivik will plead insanity. Asked if his client was insane, he responded: "Yes, he may be."
He added: "This whole case indicates that he's insane."
Lippestad said it was "very difficult" to describe Breivik's manner -- "he is not like anyone."
Norwegian police released the first four names of victims of Friday's terror attacks Tuesday afternoon.
Three of the four identified were killed in a bombing outside government offices in Oslo, in which eight people died. They were Tove Ashill Knutsen, 56, Hanna Orvik Endresen, 61, and Kai Hauge, 32. The fourth, named as 23-year-old Gunnar Linaker, died on Utoya island.
The police said they would post an update at 6 p.m. every day, until all the victims have been identified. Their families will be notified first.
Lippestad said Breivik had told him he was in touch with two terror cells in Norway and in contact with other cells abroad, but that he acted alone in carrying out the attack on Utoya and the Oslo bombing.
"He says there are several cells around the western world -- where, I do not know," Lippestad said. Breivik is cooperating with police inquiries, "but he won't talk about the other cells," he added.
His client considers himself to be "in a war," Lippestad said. He believes his client can get a fair trial, he added.
The police declined to say how many people are still missing, saying the number was still subject to change. They have said in the past that they were searching for four or five people.
Forensic scientists are still searching Utoya for clues, and the island will remain closed to the public for at least two weeks, Norwegian Police Chief Sveinung Sponheim said.
Other countries are involved in the Norwegian investigation into last week's attacks, police said in response to a question about Breivik's claim to have been in contact with terror cells abroad. They declined to name the other countries, saying "the investigation is in Norway."
They also declined to say where Breivik is being held.
Prosecutors are considering charging Breivik with crimes against humanity, according to police. He is facing terror-related charges that carry a maximum 21-year sentence.
Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician whose Freedom Party is referenced in a manifesto apparently written by Breivik, condemned the suspect's alleged actions Tuesday. Wilders said he was not "responsible for a lone idiot who twisted the freedom-loving anti-Islamization ideals" of his party.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden visited the Norwegian ambassador's residence in Washington Tuesday to "offer condolences to the people of Norway after the tragic killings that occurred last week," according to a White House statement.
Earlier, Breivik's father said his son should have killed himself instead of allegedly going on the killing spree.
"In my darkest moments, I think that rather than killing all those people, he should have taken his own life," Jens Breivik said in an interview with Norway's TV2. He said he also believes his son has mental issues.
"He must be. He must be," the father said in response to a reporter's question about whether he thought his son was mentally ill.
"There is no other way to explain it. A normal person would never do such a thing."
Breivik's father had a message for all the victims during his interview.
"I would like to say that I feel an incredible grief and despair over what has happened. I often think of how terrible it must be for those who are affected by this. I wish I could do something for them, but here I am, powerless to do anything," the father said.
Lippestad said Breivik does not know what his father said. He said he does not know if any of Breivik's family members have asked to see him.
Breivik's father, who was interviewed at his home in France, said he would not be visiting his son as the legal process continues.
"No. I will never have more contact with him," he told TV2.
The suspect's father was one of many people searching for answers Tuesday after the mass killings that terrorized Norway last week.
Authorities revised the death toll from Friday's attacks to 76 on Monday -- eight from the bombing at the Oslo building that houses Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's offices and 68 at the island summer camp run by his ruling Labour Party.
At a news conference Tuesday, hotelier Petter Stordalen pledged to give 5 million kroner ($923,000) to rebuild Utoya Island.
He promised it would be "a new Utoya, a Utoya for everyone. It's been a summer camp for the Labour Party, now it's to be an island for everyone."
Eskil Peterson, a leader of the Labour Party's youth movement, the AUF, said the party had first been shocked and now was mourning those killed. That sorrow will intensify when police release the identities of all those killed, he said.
"When we see those names, it will be heartbreaking for everybody," he said.
The 32-year-old suspect acknowledged carrying out the attacks but said they were necessary to prevent the "colonization" of the country by Muslims, a judge said Monday.
Breivik accused the Labour Party of "treason" for promoting multiculturalism, Judge Kim Heger said after a closed hearing Monday.
According to Heger, Breivik also said that he worked with two cells to launch the attacks, the deadliest onslaught in Norway since World War II. Police refused to comment on the claim, but a police official said Breivik appeared to be "very calm" during his hearing.
Almost 200,000 people participated in a memorial Monday in downtown Oslo to honor the victims, authorities said. Trains were halted as part of a nationwide observance, and Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang said the turnout showed that Norwegians do not accept violence.
Breivik hates democracy and all who believe in it, his lawyer said Tuesday. He added that his client felt the rest of the world didn't understand his point of view but that they would in 60 years' time.
He is undergoing a medical examination, Lippestad told reporters. Breivik is now "very tired" because of his circumstances, he said, but he was not injured when he was taken into police custody.
Marit Andersen said she knew Breivik in high school and described him as an entertainer who had friends and was quite successful in school. Andersen said she later saw Breivik's views change.
"Later, it became more extreme, and I remember after we all got on Facebook, I became friends with him there," Andersen said. "He had some rather outrageous statements there. I had commented on something he said. ... I said you can't say stuff like that. It's unacceptable."
Breivik appears to have written a 1,500-page manifesto that rants against Muslims and lays out meticulous plans to prepare for the attacks. In it, the author vilifies Stoltenberg and the Labour Party, accusing it of perpetuating "cultural Marxist/multiculturalist ideals" and indoctrinating youths with those ideals. The author accuses the Labour Party of embracing those ideals and allowing the "Islamification of Europe."
CNN has not independently confirmed that Breivik is the author of the manifesto, which bears his name and says it is intended to be circulated among sympathizers. The writer rails against Muslims and their growing presence in Europe, and calls for a European civil war to overthrow governments, end multiculturalism and execute "cultural Marxists."
It contains photographs of Breivik wearing what appears to be a military uniform that features an altered U.S. Marine Corps dress jacket with medals of the Knights Templar -- an order of Christian Crusaders who helped fight against Muslim rule of the Holy Land in the Middle Ages, but which was shut down 700 years ago.
Breivik asked to wear a uniform to the court hearing but was not allowed to, Heger said. The judge said he ordered Breivik held in isolation for the next four weeks to ensure he has no opportunity to tamper with evidence, Heger said.
The suspect has access to his lawyer but to no one else, and not to letters or news, court officials said.
According to the Norwegian newspaper VG, which cited unidentified sources, Breivik told investigators during interviews that he belonged to a revived Knights Templar. He described the organization as an armed Christian order, fighting to rid the West of Islamic suppression, the newspaper said.
CNN's Jonathan Wald, Nic Robertson, Antonia Mortensen, Laura Perez Maestro, Michael Holmes, Jennifer Deaton, Erin McLaughlin and Greg Botelho contributed to this report.
Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- Norwegian massacre suspect Anders Behring Breivik was "a little bit surprised" that he was able to pull off a bombing and shooting rampage in which he is accused of killing 76 people in total, his lawyer said Tuesday.
His client was surprised that his plan "succeeded -- succeeded in his mind," attorney Geir Lippestad said at a news conference, adding that Breivik didn't expect to reach Utoya Island, where he is accused of shooting 68 people dead Friday.
Breivik also used drugs before the attacks Friday that were designed to keep him strong and awake, his attorney said.
Lippestad said it was too early to say if Breivik will plead insanity. Asked if his client was insane, he responded: "Yes, he may be."
He added: "This whole case indicates that he's insane."
Lippestad said it was "very difficult" to describe Breivik's manner -- "he is not like anyone."
Norwegian police released the first four names of victims of Friday's terror attacks Tuesday afternoon.
Three of the four identified were killed in a bombing outside government offices in Oslo, in which eight people died. They were Tove Ashill Knutsen, 56, Hanna Orvik Endresen, 61, and Kai Hauge, 32. The fourth, named as 23-year-old Gunnar Linaker, died on Utoya island.
The police said they would post an update at 6 p.m. every day, until all the victims have been identified. Their families will be notified first.
Lippestad said Breivik had told him he was in touch with two terror cells in Norway and in contact with other cells abroad, but that he acted alone in carrying out the attack on Utoya and the Oslo bombing.
"He says there are several cells around the western world -- where, I do not know," Lippestad said. Breivik is cooperating with police inquiries, "but he won't talk about the other cells," he added.
His client considers himself to be "in a war," Lippestad said. He believes his client can get a fair trial, he added.
The police declined to say how many people are still missing, saying the number was still subject to change. They have said in the past that they were searching for four or five people.
Forensic scientists are still searching Utoya for clues, and the island will remain closed to the public for at least two weeks, Norwegian Police Chief Sveinung Sponheim said.
Other countries are involved in the Norwegian investigation into last week's attacks, police said in response to a question about Breivik's claim to have been in contact with terror cells abroad. They declined to name the other countries, saying "the investigation is in Norway."
They also declined to say where Breivik is being held.
Prosecutors are considering charging Breivik with crimes against humanity, according to police. He is facing terror-related charges that carry a maximum 21-year sentence.
Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician whose Freedom Party is referenced in a manifesto apparently written by Breivik, condemned the suspect's alleged actions Tuesday. Wilders said he was not "responsible for a lone idiot who twisted the freedom-loving anti-Islamization ideals" of his party.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden visited the Norwegian ambassador's residence in Washington Tuesday to "offer condolences to the people of Norway after the tragic killings that occurred last week," according to a White House statement.
Earlier, Breivik's father said his son should have killed himself instead of allegedly going on the killing spree.
"In my darkest moments, I think that rather than killing all those people, he should have taken his own life," Jens Breivik said in an interview with Norway's TV2. He said he also believes his son has mental issues.
"He must be. He must be," the father said in response to a reporter's question about whether he thought his son was mentally ill.
"There is no other way to explain it. A normal person would never do such a thing."
Breivik's father had a message for all the victims during his interview.
"I would like to say that I feel an incredible grief and despair over what has happened. I often think of how terrible it must be for those who are affected by this. I wish I could do something for them, but here I am, powerless to do anything," the father said.
Lippestad said Breivik does not know what his father said. He said he does not know if any of Breivik's family members have asked to see him.
Breivik's father, who was interviewed at his home in France, said he would not be visiting his son as the legal process continues.
"No. I will never have more contact with him," he told TV2.
The suspect's father was one of many people searching for answers Tuesday after the mass killings that terrorized Norway last week.
Authorities revised the death toll from Friday's attacks to 76 on Monday -- eight from the bombing at the Oslo building that houses Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's offices and 68 at the island summer camp run by his ruling Labour Party.
At a news conference Tuesday, hotelier Petter Stordalen pledged to give 5 million kroner ($923,000) to rebuild Utoya Island.
He promised it would be "a new Utoya, a Utoya for everyone. It's been a summer camp for the Labour Party, now it's to be an island for everyone."
Eskil Peterson, a leader of the Labour Party's youth movement, the AUF, said the party had first been shocked and now was mourning those killed. That sorrow will intensify when police release the identities of all those killed, he said.
"When we see those names, it will be heartbreaking for everybody," he said.
The 32-year-old suspect acknowledged carrying out the attacks but said they were necessary to prevent the "colonization" of the country by Muslims, a judge said Monday.
Breivik accused the Labour Party of "treason" for promoting multiculturalism, Judge Kim Heger said after a closed hearing Monday.
According to Heger, Breivik also said that he worked with two cells to launch the attacks, the deadliest onslaught in Norway since World War II. Police refused to comment on the claim, but a police official said Breivik appeared to be "very calm" during his hearing.
Almost 200,000 people participated in a memorial Monday in downtown Oslo to honor the victims, authorities said. Trains were halted as part of a nationwide observance, and Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang said the turnout showed that Norwegians do not accept violence.
Breivik hates democracy and all who believe in it, his lawyer said Tuesday. He added that his client felt the rest of the world didn't understand his point of view but that they would in 60 years' time.
He is undergoing a medical examination, Lippestad told reporters. Breivik is now "very tired" because of his circumstances, he said, but he was not injured when he was taken into police custody.
Marit Andersen said she knew Breivik in high school and described him as an entertainer who had friends and was quite successful in school. Andersen said she later saw Breivik's views change.
"Later, it became more extreme, and I remember after we all got on Facebook, I became friends with him there," Andersen said. "He had some rather outrageous statements there. I had commented on something he said. ... I said you can't say stuff like that. It's unacceptable."
Breivik appears to have written a 1,500-page manifesto that rants against Muslims and lays out meticulous plans to prepare for the attacks. In it, the author vilifies Stoltenberg and the Labour Party, accusing it of perpetuating "cultural Marxist/multiculturalist ideals" and indoctrinating youths with those ideals. The author accuses the Labour Party of embracing those ideals and allowing the "Islamification of Europe."
CNN has not independently confirmed that Breivik is the author of the manifesto, which bears his name and says it is intended to be circulated among sympathizers. The writer rails against Muslims and their growing presence in Europe, and calls for a European civil war to overthrow governments, end multiculturalism and execute "cultural Marxists."
It contains photographs of Breivik wearing what appears to be a military uniform that features an altered U.S. Marine Corps dress jacket with medals of the Knights Templar -- an order of Christian Crusaders who helped fight against Muslim rule of the Holy Land in the Middle Ages, but which was shut down 700 years ago.
Breivik asked to wear a uniform to the court hearing but was not allowed to, Heger said. The judge said he ordered Breivik held in isolation for the next four weeks to ensure he has no opportunity to tamper with evidence, Heger said.
The suspect has access to his lawyer but to no one else, and not to letters or news, court officials said.
According to the Norwegian newspaper VG, which cited unidentified sources, Breivik told investigators during interviews that he belonged to a revived Knights Templar. He described the organization as an armed Christian order, fighting to rid the West of Islamic suppression, the newspaper said.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Washington Times' Timeline about Pak-US relations ...
Never Pak-US relations (always based on interests rather than warmth, unlike Pak-China relations)have been so low. The raid on OBL to kill him and than continuous drone attacks have soured up the relations at their new heights....
The URL ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/special/pakistan-timeline/timeline-us-pakistan-relations.html
The URL ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/special/pakistan-timeline/timeline-us-pakistan-relations.html
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Christian Fundamentalism and Terrorism
An Aljazeera Article
Norway, Islam and the threat of the West
Dismissing this murderous act as the work of "a lone madman" ignores a more detailed study of the killer's motivation.
Ibrahim Hewitt
A few years ago, the respected Cambridge scholar T J Winter, also known by his Muslim name of Abdal Hakim Murad, gave a fascinating lecture to Humanities staff and students at the University of Leicester. The title was "Islam and the threat of the West", turning on its head the more usual - then and now - "Islam and the threat to the West".
It was a novel approach which, in a nutshell, illustrated that, historically, aggression has been directed more from Europe to the Muslim world than the other way round. His evidence for such a view was impeccably sourced.
I thought about Abdal Hakim's talk this morning as I read the reports coming in of the dreadful bombing and shooting in Norway wherein, of course, there was speculation that these two events were "Islamic-terror related". No doubt we will learn more over the coming days, but the early signs are, in fact, that the perpetrator was a "blond, blue-eyed Norwegian" with "political traits towards the right, and anti-Muslim views". Not surprisingly, the man's intentions were neither linked to these "traits", nor to his postings on "websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies". Any influence "remains to be seen"; echoes of Oklahoma 1995.
Interestingly, this criminal is described by one unnamed Norwegian official as a "madman". He may well be, but this is one way that the motivations for heinous crimes can be airbrushed out of the story before they have the chance to take hold in the popular imagination.
Closing the book
In 1969, for example, Denis Michael Rohan, an Australian Christian who set fire to Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was dismissed as a "madman" and sent for psychiatric treatment; end of story. The right-wing fundamentalists plotting to destroy the mosque, and the nearby Dome of the Rock, lived to fight another day. I suspect that that is what will happen with the Norwegian bomber/shooter; his right-wing links and Christian fundamentalist contacts will be dismissed as irrelevant. This, we will be told, was the work of a "deranged" person "acting independently". Ergo, the only organised "terror threats" to civilisation are still "Islamic-related" and the focus of anti-terror legislation and efforts must remain in the Muslim world and on Muslim communities in Europe and the USA.
If we allow this to happen, we will be doing the world a great disservice, not least because the new right is on the rise across the West - and Oklahoma was proof that its followers are capable of immense destruction.
Neo-Nazi immigrants from Eastern Europe have even been active in Israel where the government, while deploring such far-right activity in its midst is actually edging ever more to the far-right on a daily basis. Ministers advocate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in order to purify Israel as a "Jewish state"; precious human rights for which the world has struggled are overridden in the name of "state security"; criminals in uniform are allowed to get away, quite literally, with murder.
All of this takes place with the collusion of Western governments which are themselves showing right-wing tendencies towards double-speak on matters of respect and tolerance for minorities. If you are even remotely "different" in Europe today, especially if you are a Muslim, you are eyed with suspicion and must go out of your way to "prove" your loyalty to a state which, if the truth was made known, would get rid of you if only it had the guts to pass the necessary legislation to do so. In some cases, such legislation is virtually in place in the guise of "anti-terror" measures.
All of this is backed by a vociferous and influential right-wing media which supports Israel right or wrong - and a pro-Israel lobby which acts as if it is untouchable. Given the political context across the West, it probably is.
Attacks against the left
It is significant that the target of the Norwegian "madman" appears to have been the left-leaning Labour Party, both in Oslo and on the island where the shootings took place. Across Europe, the left has been forming alliances with Muslim groups to fight fascism and racism of all kinds, and it cannot be a coincidence that The politics of multiculturalism in the new Europe, a collection of essays from across the continent, published in 1997, concluded almost without exception that "the challenge" facing Europe was the presence of large Muslim communities in "our" midst. Anyone who claims therefore, that the perpetrator's "right-wing traits" and "anti-Muslim views", or even links with "Christian fundamentalist" websites are irrelevant is trying to draw a veil over the unacceptable truths of such "traits" and expecting us to believe that right-wing ideology is incapable of prompting someone towards such criminality.
Of course, that idea is nonsensical. Right-wing ideology was behind the Holocaust; it has been behind most anti-Semitism and other racism around the world; the notion of Europe's and Europeans' racial superiority - giving cultural credibility to the far-right - gave rise to the slave trade and the scramble for Africa leading to untold atrocities against "the Other"; ditto in the Middle and Far East. Ironically, it is also far-right Zionism - far from the socialist myths of Zionist pioneers in the 1930s and before - which has been behind the ethnic cleansing of Palestine throughout the 20th century, right up to today, as a specific policy to be pursued - by military means if necessary.
This is well-documented and yet ignored by our political masters. In the context of the latest apparently far-right atrocities in Norway, it is equally ironic that the word in English for a traitor who collaborates with an enemy power stems from Major Vidkun Quisling who ruled Norway on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War.
We dismiss this "madman" as a one-off "not linked to any international terrorist organisations" at our peril. If nothing else, history has shown us that such ideologies are trans-national across and beyond the West, with catastrophic effects on the rest of the world. We have been warned.
Norway, Islam and the threat of the West
Dismissing this murderous act as the work of "a lone madman" ignores a more detailed study of the killer's motivation.
Ibrahim Hewitt
A few years ago, the respected Cambridge scholar T J Winter, also known by his Muslim name of Abdal Hakim Murad, gave a fascinating lecture to Humanities staff and students at the University of Leicester. The title was "Islam and the threat of the West", turning on its head the more usual - then and now - "Islam and the threat to the West".
It was a novel approach which, in a nutshell, illustrated that, historically, aggression has been directed more from Europe to the Muslim world than the other way round. His evidence for such a view was impeccably sourced.
I thought about Abdal Hakim's talk this morning as I read the reports coming in of the dreadful bombing and shooting in Norway wherein, of course, there was speculation that these two events were "Islamic-terror related". No doubt we will learn more over the coming days, but the early signs are, in fact, that the perpetrator was a "blond, blue-eyed Norwegian" with "political traits towards the right, and anti-Muslim views". Not surprisingly, the man's intentions were neither linked to these "traits", nor to his postings on "websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies". Any influence "remains to be seen"; echoes of Oklahoma 1995.
Interestingly, this criminal is described by one unnamed Norwegian official as a "madman". He may well be, but this is one way that the motivations for heinous crimes can be airbrushed out of the story before they have the chance to take hold in the popular imagination.
Closing the book
In 1969, for example, Denis Michael Rohan, an Australian Christian who set fire to Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was dismissed as a "madman" and sent for psychiatric treatment; end of story. The right-wing fundamentalists plotting to destroy the mosque, and the nearby Dome of the Rock, lived to fight another day. I suspect that that is what will happen with the Norwegian bomber/shooter; his right-wing links and Christian fundamentalist contacts will be dismissed as irrelevant. This, we will be told, was the work of a "deranged" person "acting independently". Ergo, the only organised "terror threats" to civilisation are still "Islamic-related" and the focus of anti-terror legislation and efforts must remain in the Muslim world and on Muslim communities in Europe and the USA.
If we allow this to happen, we will be doing the world a great disservice, not least because the new right is on the rise across the West - and Oklahoma was proof that its followers are capable of immense destruction.
Neo-Nazi immigrants from Eastern Europe have even been active in Israel where the government, while deploring such far-right activity in its midst is actually edging ever more to the far-right on a daily basis. Ministers advocate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in order to purify Israel as a "Jewish state"; precious human rights for which the world has struggled are overridden in the name of "state security"; criminals in uniform are allowed to get away, quite literally, with murder.
All of this takes place with the collusion of Western governments which are themselves showing right-wing tendencies towards double-speak on matters of respect and tolerance for minorities. If you are even remotely "different" in Europe today, especially if you are a Muslim, you are eyed with suspicion and must go out of your way to "prove" your loyalty to a state which, if the truth was made known, would get rid of you if only it had the guts to pass the necessary legislation to do so. In some cases, such legislation is virtually in place in the guise of "anti-terror" measures.
All of this is backed by a vociferous and influential right-wing media which supports Israel right or wrong - and a pro-Israel lobby which acts as if it is untouchable. Given the political context across the West, it probably is.
Attacks against the left
It is significant that the target of the Norwegian "madman" appears to have been the left-leaning Labour Party, both in Oslo and on the island where the shootings took place. Across Europe, the left has been forming alliances with Muslim groups to fight fascism and racism of all kinds, and it cannot be a coincidence that The politics of multiculturalism in the new Europe, a collection of essays from across the continent, published in 1997, concluded almost without exception that "the challenge" facing Europe was the presence of large Muslim communities in "our" midst. Anyone who claims therefore, that the perpetrator's "right-wing traits" and "anti-Muslim views", or even links with "Christian fundamentalist" websites are irrelevant is trying to draw a veil over the unacceptable truths of such "traits" and expecting us to believe that right-wing ideology is incapable of prompting someone towards such criminality.
Of course, that idea is nonsensical. Right-wing ideology was behind the Holocaust; it has been behind most anti-Semitism and other racism around the world; the notion of Europe's and Europeans' racial superiority - giving cultural credibility to the far-right - gave rise to the slave trade and the scramble for Africa leading to untold atrocities against "the Other"; ditto in the Middle and Far East. Ironically, it is also far-right Zionism - far from the socialist myths of Zionist pioneers in the 1930s and before - which has been behind the ethnic cleansing of Palestine throughout the 20th century, right up to today, as a specific policy to be pursued - by military means if necessary.
This is well-documented and yet ignored by our political masters. In the context of the latest apparently far-right atrocities in Norway, it is equally ironic that the word in English for a traitor who collaborates with an enemy power stems from Major Vidkun Quisling who ruled Norway on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War.
We dismiss this "madman" as a one-off "not linked to any international terrorist organisations" at our peril. If nothing else, history has shown us that such ideologies are trans-national across and beyond the West, with catastrophic effects on the rest of the world. We have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)