Sunday, December 26, 2010

Broadside Fired at al-Qaeda Leaders









http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LL10Df04.html

 

Broadside fired at al-Qaeda leaders
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - A number of senior al-Qaeda members who had earlier opposed the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and some of whom were recently released from detention in Iran, have produced an electronic book critical of al-Qaeda's leadership vision and strategy.

The book, the first of its kind to publicly show collective dissent within al-Qaeda, was released last month. It urges the self-acclaimed global Muslim resistance against Western hegemony to open itself to the Muslim intelligentsia for advice and to harmonize its strategy with mainstream Islamic movements.

Analysts who spoke to Asia Times Online said that on face value the book did not indicate a spilt, rather an academic and "polite" review of al-Qaeda's policies. However, at a later stage, suchhttp://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=996&campaignid=565&zoneid=36&loc=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atimes.com%2Fatimes%2FSouth_Asia%2FLL10Df04.html&cb=4b485bbdb5

 

discussion could lead to a division within al-Qaeda's ranks in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region where the top leadership is stationed.
Twenty questions
Three of the top al-Qaeda decision-makers who opposed the 9/11 attacks plotted by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad were Egyptian Saiful Adil (Saif al-Adel), an important military planner; Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, once the chief of al-Qaeda's religious committee that reviews all decisions; Suleman Abu al-Gaith, who was al-Qaeda's chief spokesperson.

All three moved to Iran where they lived under limited restrictions until being released along with more than a dozen others earlier this year. (See How Iran and al-Qaeda made a deal Asia Times Online, April 30, 2010.) They then settled in the rugged Pakistani tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan that is home to the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaeda and related militant groups.

On November 15, some members of this group released Twenty Guidelines for Jihad on the Internet site www.mafa.asia. The author is cited as Suleman, saying he was "al-Qaeda's official spokesperson in 2001," indicating a distancing from al-Qaeda's organizational structure.

The preface of the Arabic-language book was written by Mehfuz bin Waleed (as Abu Hafs al-Mauritani is also known). He was the chief of al-Qaeda's religious committee before 9/11, after which he was sent to Iran as al-Qaeda's envoy in that country. He struck a deal with the government to allow the free movement of Arab families from Afghanistan to the Arab world via the province of Zahedan.

He was later joined by other al-Qaeda members, in addition to some family members of Osama bin Laden. They were all kept in guest houses in a designated colony, but were not allowed to leave Iran.

The website on which the book was released is owned and operated by Abu Waleed al-Misri, also known as Mustafa Hamid. He was a close aide of Bin Laden but fled to Iran before 9/11. He has written 11 books on Arab-Afghans. His latest book, Cross in the Skies of Kandahar, criticizes the al-Qaeda leader in particular and al-Qaeda in general, holding them responsible for the collapse of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan (Taliban regime), which fell in late 2001 following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11.

Hamid's main criticism of Bin Laden is that he is authoritarian and refuses to take advice. He alleges that Bin Laden has placed himself as a superior to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, whom all Arab-Afghans recognize as their ameer or chief. Hamid narrates that while Bin Laden has pledged his allegiance to Mullah Omar, he does not follow his instructions and therefore deserves punishment.

Al-Qaeda at a crossroad
Gaith's electronic book is ostensibly for tarbait (guidance) and is not written to directly malign al-Qaeda's leaders - indeed, it does not name any of them. It is critical though, for example Gaith takes to task leaders who do not take advice. "They took decisions in haste that resulted in a big defeat."

"They think that they are right all the time and they are encircled by a bunch of advisers who do not qualify to give advice. Ironically, this situation stands in the way of jihad, which belongs to the ummah [Muslim world] and their decisions affect the whole Muslim world. This is such a delicate matter as strategy is supposed to be consulted with all Muslim groups, scholars and the Muslim intelligentsia in general."

This could be taken as an explicit criticism of al-Qaeda deputy Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, who has condemned Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in Palestine and severed all ties with them.

"It means isolation of yourself and the mujahideen from the mainstream Islamic movements and from the Muslim world. It makes the task easier for the enemy to isolate you and target you," Gaith writes.

He stresses that the feelings of the ummah should be taken into account before any grand operation is carried out. "Your arsenal is supposed to be used against combatants only, not against innocent people. You mishandled operations and oppressed common men, while our role is supposed to be that of liberators against zulm [oppression]."

This is the first book by a member of al-Qaeda that cites early modern Islamic movement ideologues like Hasan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood), Muhammad al-Ghazali (Muslim Brotherhood Egypt), Syed Abul Ala Maududi (founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami in South Asia), and Gaith urges al-Qaeda leaders to follow the advice of these ideologues.

Gaith does not endorse the adherence to democratic systems adopted by some contemporary Islamic movements, and also condemns their relations with Muslim ruling regimes, but he stresses in the book that they still have a lot of merits and those merits should be appreciated.

"Definitely, we will fail if our leadership does not follow and practice the characters of good leaders and ideologues and if our leaders continue to believe that they are right all the time."

Without naming Mullah Omar, Gaith underlined a necessity to obey his directives as a single central command. "All jihadi groups should be under one leadership, which must consult with experts and scholars from the whole ummah. They [leaders] are silent against some declared enemies of Islam while they openly mock and criticize Islamic groups."

Potential split?
During the 1990s, at least 17 Arab groups operated in Afghanistan and while they were influenced by al-Qaeda, they operated separately. By the time of 9/11, the majority had merged into al-Qaeda, with exceptions such as al-Gama Islamiya al-Muqatilal (GIM), Jamaatul Toheed Wal Jihad (led by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi who joined al-Qaeda very late after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003), beside hundreds of Arabs who independently joined the cause of jihad with the powerful Jalaluddin Haqqani.

After 9/11, even these independent operators had little choice but to operate with al-Qaeda as in the "war on terror", all Arab-Afghans were seen as al-Qaeda. Many were arrested in Pakistan and abroad simply because they lived in Afghanistan. In a quest for a safe haven, they went to the Pakistani tribal areas and stayed in al-Qaeda's camps because it was the only potent Arab organization left in the region that could provide them shelter. Many Arab-Afghans were opposed to al-Qaeda's strategies, but they had no room to question them.

Now, with top al-Qaeda operators openly expressing criticism, such views could gain momentum. This could lead to reform of the most violent self-acclaimed global Muslim resistance movement against Western hegemony, or it might allow dissenters to side with mainstream Afghan-Taliban leaders and break with al-Qaeda.
Renowned Arab journalist Jamal Ismail, author of Bin Laden, al-Jazeera and Me who has met Bin Laden and interviewed Zawahiri, commented to Asia Times Online, "It is not a spilt [at this point], but a review. However, at a later stage, it might lead to a spilt if the advice [in the book] is not listened to, as well as other opinions from inside and outside of al-Qaeda."

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban 9/11 and Beyond published by Pluto Press, UK.





--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Krugman Eating America Alive

Krugman dont know shit from shinola about economics.  And he proves it in every column he writes. 

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:





No, Mr. Krugman, You're Eating America Alive

·         Article By Neeraj Chaudhary | December 25, 2010 3:17 AM EST

Here we go again. This week, Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in economics and the go-to guy for progressives who need a morale boost, launched another misguided attack on Austrian School economists. From his New York Times soapbox, he referred to the free-market Austrian "hard money" philosophy as a "zombie idea" that is inexplicably eating the brains of the voting public.

The attack would hardly be worth a reaction if it weren't for the fact that column did create a buzz. In the piece, he repeated a refrain that has become common for the empirically defeated Keynesians. Said Krugman, "many economists, myself included, warned from the beginning that [President Obama's original stimulus plan] was grossly inadequate." He continued, "[a] policy under which government employment actually fell, under which government spending on goods and services grew more slowly than during the Bush years, hardly constitutes a test of Keynesian economics."

When looking for zombies, the first place Mr. Krugman should look is in the mirror. He has one answer to every problem: eat more taxpayers. He isn't even a true Keynesian. Mr. Krugman is the guardian of a system that died a long time ago. He is the walking undead of the New Deal era.

What Keynes actually said about government spending is that during recessions, governments should run budget deficits to boost aggregate demand, and during expansions, governments should run budget surpluses in order to save up for the inevitable recession years.

Now, whether you agree with this or not - and I happen to disagree with this approach - what we have actually done is run deficits, year-in, year-out, almost every single year for 40 years! And, as a result, we have accumulated a national debt approaching 100% of our annual gross domestic product.

This level of indebtedness has been shown to reduce the level of growth in an economy, no matter how advanced. Yet, Mr. Krugman argues that we should spend more money and run even higher deficits. So, who are the real zombies: those economists who mindlessly favor more and more government deficits in perpetuity, or those who have struggled to warn their fellow man that we are approaching a point of no return?

In the 1990s, the Austrians warned of a tech bubble. The Krugmanites urged lower interest rates and more government spending. In the 2000s, the Austrians warned of a housing bubble. The Krugmanites urged lower interest rates and more government spending. Today, the Austrians warn of a bond bubble that will lead to potential sovereign default. And, with the terrifying zeal of a flesh-eating corpse, Krugman urges lower interest rates and more government spending.

To me, it's very clear: just as a family or a business cannot continuously spend more than it earns, governments must live within their means as well. The US government has had special privileges since 1944 because our currency serves as the international reserve. But we are not behaving as good stewards of this responsibility, and, if we are not careful, the world is going to dump the dollar. If that happens, the trillions of dollars that are held by foreign central banks could come flooding back into the US economy, causing an inflationary period that dwarfs the stagflation era of the 1970s. It certainly won't help that our nation is more dependent than ever on foreign oil. [For those looking to gain investment exposure to the North American energy market, be sure to read Euro Pacific's new special report, "What's Ahead for Canadian Energy Trusts?" Click Here to download.]

Austrians believe foremost in sound money - the idea that the amount of currency in the economy should be relatively stable, so that its purchasing power is maintained over time. This minimizes inflation, and allows consumers, businesses, and lenders to make efficient financial decisions. It also keeps government in check, because the Treasury cannot run perpetual deficits and simply print new money when the bills come due. It is no coincidence that our nation's descent into near-constant annual deficits took place right around the same time as President Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Austrians believe that free markets are largely self-regulating. This means that people will tend to make choices in what they perceive to be their own best interest. Government interventions are almost always meant to override individual choice because politicians think they know better. This is not only personally offensive, but leaves us with an economy that can provide less of what people actually want and too much of what they don't want. Look at the housing bubble. Government incentives caused miles and miles of McMansions to be built across the country - houses that most people could not actually afford. In the meantime, productivity was diverted from producing things people actually need and can afford. The result is an economic depression and heart-breaking dislocation for millions of Americans.

Austrian School economists are not zombies. Our philosophy promotes life, liberty, and prosperity - last time I checked these are not the goals which get zombies up in the morning. Meanwhile, economists such as Mr. Krugman continue to argue for lower interest rates, more intervention, more spending, and larger deficits. He advocates for an economic system that feeds off the productive strata of society to support the unproductive. Now there's a philosophy that any self-respecting zombie could support!

Where does it end, Mr. Krugman? At what point do we stop running our deficits and start to pay back the money that we have borrowed? At what point will enough wealth be extracted from producers to support your voracious appetite for spending? Perhaps you think we should we mindlessly devour the purchasing power of our fellow nations until there is nothing left, but what happens when they take a shotgun to our heads?

 


--
This group is created for discussing national issues to stop the current administration from transforming this country into something not intended by the founders. Any discussions that are not relevant to that topic will be deleted.
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Tea Party Patriots" group.
To post to this group, send email to tea-party-patriots@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tea-party-patriots+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tea-party-patriots?hl=en?hl=en
 
For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visit http://www.teapartypatriots.org.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ultimate Beer Dispenser [VIDEO]


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Christmas Bonus















--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Fw: PakNationalists - Pakistan's Budding Kissinger



© 2007-2010. All rights reserved. PakNationalists.com

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Pakistan's Budding Kissinger

 

The elected government of President Zardari appoints an optician-turned-foreign policy expert Nasir Ali Khan as Ambassador at Large who has visited 25 countries in 24 months costing 15 million. His credentials? Played marbles with Shah Mehmood Qureshi at school.

 

nasir-amb-dec10.jpg

 

ZAFAR HILALY | Thursday | 23 December 2010 | The News International

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—To support the travel expenses of a Mr Nasir Ali Khan, an optician turned foreign affairs expert, now Ambassador at Large, probably takes a hundred fold as much money as it does to support the life of a common man.


Statistics to this effect were revealed in the National Assembly yesterday, in response to a question by a member of the opposition. Apparently in the space of 24 months Mr Nasir Ali Khan had visited 25 countries, some more than once, spending a total of 156 days outside the country at a cost of 15 million rupees to the national exchequer. On one trip to the US he stayed abroad on 'assignment' for as long as 18 days. That, apparently, is a record which is unequalled by any president, prime minister or foreign minister and one that will in all probability remain unchallenged. 

It would have been interesting if MNA Nighat Saleem, who asked the question in parliament, would have followed up the government's response by asking precisely what was the purpose of the Ambassador at Large's mission to Trinidad and Tobago. I must confess that after a sleepless night I am still unable to think of one unless he was representing the Islamic Republic at a Reggae fest. 

On reading the government's response I rang up some serving and retired contacts to ask them who exactly this budding Kissinger was and why was he being shielded from public eye almost as much as our nuclear assets. Guffaws of laughter greeted my questions. "Don't you know? He's a bum-chum of Shah Mehmood Qureshi since their school days," said one and all. Not believing that our foreign minister had assigned this particular gentleman a spanking new office at the prestigious third floor of the Foreign Office, and insisted on being accompanied by him on his visits abroad only because they had played marbles at school, I decided to snoop around. But snoop as much as I did, I discovered nothing to suggest otherwise. 

It then occurred to me that I must be looking in the wrong place and asked one of the most prominent and widely respected Pakistani journalists in Islamabad, who is also a columnist for several major international newspapers, whether he had met our 'Kissinger' or heard him dilate on foreign affairs and what he thought of him. Except relating he confirmed that he had met Mr Nasir Ali Khan the rest of what he said is unprintable. 

Never having met the Ambassador at Large personally, or heard him speak, on or off the record, or having read a word that he had written, I can't swear that it he is as clueless about his new job as is being alleged but, alas, one feels that he may be. In this regime, as we have discovered to our cost time and time again, there is simply no criterion to fill a post. Anyone can be slotted for any job. Appointments are made on the basis of blood relations, friendship, larceny and what have you. The disdain for qualifications, experience, aptitude, performance, merit, abounds with the candidate's lust for office, backed by lucre, often proving decisive. 

Of the ambassadors at large appointed by this regime, one used to be a computer operator at the World Bank; another was a restaurant owner in Dubai; a third had no fixed vocation and alarmingly no fixed address. Apparently there are more of whom one does not hear perhaps because they violated their bail bonds. Of course, the professions identified are perfectly respectable ones except that they are as far removed from the craft of diplomacy as this government's concern is for merit. 

About the only ambassador at large today, who has any experience of diplomacy, is Ambassador Zia Ispahani but unfortunately his experience was only judged sufficient for a solitary mission in the past two years, in stark contrast to the 30 assigned to Mr Nasir Ali Khan, the optician. Considering that on most of his 'missions' the foreign minister was also with him, one wonders what Mr Nasir's actual tasks were apart from being a factotum. And again, on this score too there is much lurid speculation in Islamabad. 

For a government to be perceived as having the right man for the job adds to its stature and, of course, its performance; and the opposite is true when fools seem to be in an overwhelming majority. In her second term, some of BB's advisers realising the politician's proclivity to get carried away by considerations other than qualifications, experience, aptitude, performance and merit, suggested that she confine her selection to top posts in the bureaucracy from a shortlist of three provided by a select group of advisers headed by a very experienced former civil servant. BB would have none of it. 

Politicians as a rule don't like their freedom to appoint, and sometimes anoint who they wish circumscribed by rules or even common sense. They love to flaunt their power. After suffering as much as they do, in the form of beatings, jail and torture when out of office, they hate being told that some or other rule prevents them from savoring their victory and appointing whoever they wish to a job. 

Just because the public has, for the moment, preferred their wisdom to that of their opponents they think they know best, and even though one of them paid for it with his life and BB's choices on occasions turned out to be wrong it's a habit that dies hard, as the Zardari-Gilani duo have amply demonstrated in their choice of candidates to fill important posts. Of course the performance of their opponents has been no better. 

Pakistan is one of those rare semi-functional democracies where legally the president/prime minister can go off walking on the hills around his mansion in Islamabad and return with an ambassador designate in tow. All he has to do before taking his shower is to sign a note purporting to 'be pleased to appoint' him as one. 

And that, by the looks of it, is how the current duo functions, except on the occasion when they spotted our peripatetic Ambassador at Large they were accompanied on their walk by the foreign minister who seems to have prevailed upon them to let his school chum join his diplomatic forays.


The writer is a former ambassador. Reach him at
charles123it@hotmail.com  This opinion was first published by The News International under the heading, Our budding Kissinger.

 

© 2007-2010. All rights reserved. PakNationalists.com

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197