Death Operation against Bin Laden – With Hidden US Strategies

Bin Laden Death Controversy – Disputed Abbottad Operation – Hidden Facts and Realities

According to US Govt. Osama Bin Laden has died, but this is his 8th death, According to Pakistan electronic media, What an amazing fact, before this, US Govt. had killed Bin Laden so many times, but when CIA feel the need, they release a video with the name of al-Qaeda and again Osama appears alive.

Basically al-Qaeda is nothing but pawns of American chess board, Al-Qaida is working for Islam, this thinking is quite baseless. Infact they were working for American Jewish lobby. If we look on the past, after 9/11 attacks, all proofs were going against Jews and American Jewish Lobby, it is a surprise that all Jews (more than 600) were absent on 11th September 2001 from the offices in diminished World Trade Centre, on the incident day. Jewish camera men were taking shots of 9/11 attacks on the spot and they were caught red handed when they were making the movie of the incident. All Jewish share holders had already sold their shares of air companies before the attacks. What are these facts; they are proving al-Qaeda was used and was not responsible for 9/11. These and many other proofs were making 9/11 incident doubtful according to Al-Qaeda sources. Al-Qaeda was forcibly made responsible for 9/11 unprovoked incident, this is a major example proving al-Qaida as anti Islamic or pro Jewish American organization.

Has Bin Laden really died, this is a question being asked by so many awakened and Sensible circles. If Americans claim his death so why they threw his body into the sea without showing any proof? In past, when they caught Saddam in Iraq, they tell all the world media by so many press releases and conferences that they have caught him, US govt. had continuously cried so many days about mandated Saddam Hussain and his arrest.

Osama is the biggest name as compared to Saddam Hussain, why US Govt. is not telling media the fact about his death and operation details against him? According to US Govt. they killed Osama Bin Ladin in an operation, the duration of the operation was about 35 – 40 minutes, Pakistan Army was not aware of this death operation, the most important thing is operation location which is Abbottabad city, it is located near the Pakistan Army Base Camp, The Kakul, how can it be possible that US Army or their troops operate under the nose of Pakistan Army and they remain unaware? Local peoples of Abbottabad city even nobody knows where they operate to arrest Osama in Abbottabad city. After pointing out the location, media cover the disputed point in the morning.

According to Us Govt. their troops threw his dead body into the sea at 2am after mid-night, while operation started at 12:30 AM just after mid night, they come and land through a helicopter, search and operate till 40 minutes, it means they have done at 1:10 AM, then they went back to Afghanistan in American base. Then they contacted Pakistan and Saudi Arab for his dead body, after denying they threw it in the sea! Where the hell is sea? There is no any sea in whole Afghanistan and Abbottabad city. Nearest sea is approximately at the distance of above 3000 kilometers in the Karachi. If they have killed so where they threw the dead body? This is a question, if we think deeply so the distance between American Base in Afghanistan to Abbottabad city is 256 Kilometers (159 miles approximately), after taking his body they cannot fly, reach to American Base Camp in Afghanistan, cover 159 miles distance, dialogue to Saudi Arab and Pakistan and threw the dead body in just 50 minutes. Americans are telling lie once again. So this is proved that they didn’t kill Bin Laden in said operation. Now one important question, why they were going to Abbottabad city, at mid-night? Which is a sensitive area regarding Pakistan forces. What were their aims for this journey? Pakistan Army and ISI should raise this question to them. May be, Bin Laden death operation is a fake story and it is, May be they have some other plans for this journey. But why they come like rowdy bloddy pigs after mid-night? Is it not terrorism?

Another important thing is Osama’s presence in Abbottabad city, how and when he enters in Abbottabad city which is sensitive area because of Pakistan Armed Movements of forces, Abbottabad city is the home of Pakistan Military Academy Kakul, every one even children in Asia know very well that, nobody can even pluck a leaf wit their own will. Every one and everything is in the eyes of ISI and the Pakistan Military Intelligence Agencies, So Americans are telling lie to the world that they operate, search and capture Osama from Abbottabad city Pakistan.

The most important point of US propaganda is, US Govt. has no proof of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad city, no any operation details against him, no any footage of operation, no any evidence even no any DNA report yet. Only a disputed edited image! These all are the points which make American propaganda doubtful and baseless. This arrest is basically the biggest planning and a part of American Strategy against Pakistan Army and Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence.

At the moment they are just showing a Photoshop edited image of Osama, which is also quite fake, every artist and expert of Photoshop can understand it, in that photo the face is looking healthy, while Osama has a problem of kidney that is why his face is thin not healthy, the fake photo has black beard, while Osama has 80% white beard, you can say a whitish black beard after seeing any photo of him, and because of firm belief in Islam Osama will not dye his beard, just search ‘Osama bin laden’ on Google, you will see both photos, compare and see the reality.

Why Americans are telling lie to the world, why they are showing their arrest from Pakistan? Why India and Britain are continuously categorizing Pakistan ‘the hub of Terrorism’ after this incident? Actually all these questions are very important after this incident.

Let’s have a little bit look on the past, i.e. Raymond David Case! After his hasty plight from Pakistan. Pakistan kicked out many FBI and Black water agents from Pakistan, Pakistan also deported surplus US Embassy Members, who were extra and America could not proof them ambassadorial staff. Due to this drastic action from Pakistan, American back door work plans stopped and stuck, they were at a loss after Raymond Davis, because Pakistan had deported many of their important planted faces. Now America wanted their FBI and Black Water agents back in Pakistan, that is why they are showing Bin Laden arrest from Pakistan, after his arrest all western media is crying in a chorus planned way, Pakistan is a ‘Hub of terrorism’ and do something more, start operation in Waziristan and all that.

Now after some days American Govt. shamefully cry for “do more” and will try to replant their FBI and Black Water agents through Zardari Govt. back in Pakistan in the guise of ‘war against terror’. Re-plantation and restoration of FBI and Black water agents from back doors is basically the target of US Govt. At this time, this is quite obvious from US strategies. Pakistan Army and ISI have to see all these realities and angles which are so important for Pakistan’s existence. Pakistan should immediately ask US to stop the present war against nation Actually operation in the northern areas of Pakistan and War against Terror is the war against Pakistan nation, All armed operations should be stopped in Pakistan and Pakistan Govt. has to start dialogue with feudal lords on their issues. This is the solution to existence of Pakistan.


Egypt and Akhwan ul Muslimoon – On Rich Boiling Point in Geopolitical Context

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, four transformative events have reshaped the global setting in enduring ways. When the Soviet empire collapsed two years later, the way was opened for the triumphalist pursuit of the American imperial project, seizing the opportunity for geopolitical expansion provided by its self-anointed global leadership – as ‘the sole surviving superpower’.

This first rupture in the nature of world order produced a decade of ascendant neoliberal globalisation, in which state power was temporarily and partially eclipsed by passing the torch of lead global policymaker to the Davos oligarchs, meeting annually under the banner of the World Economic Forum. In that sense, the US government was the well-subsidised sheriff of predatory globalization, while the policy agenda was being set by bankers and global corporate executives. Although not often identified as such, the 1990s gave the first evidence of the rise of non-state actors – and the decline of state-centric geopolitics.

The second rupture came with the 9/11 attacks, however those events are construed. The impact of the attacks transferred the locus of policymaking authority back to the United States, as state actor, under the rubrics of ‘the war on terror’, ‘global security’ and ‘the long war’. This counter-terrorist response to 9/11 produced claims to engage in preemptive warfare – ‘The Bush Doctrine’. This militarist foreign policy was put into practice by initiating a ‘shock and awe’ war against Iraq in March 2003, despite the refusal of the UN Security Council to back American war plans.

This second rupture has turned the entire world into a potential battlefield, with a variety of overt and covert military and paramilitary operations launched by the United States without appropriate authorisation – either from the UN or by deference to international law.

Selective sovereignty

Aside from this disruption of the liberal international order, the continuing pattern of responses to 9/11 involves disregard for the sovereign rights of states in the global south, as well as the complicity of many European and Middle Eastern states in the violation of basic human rights – through engaging in torture, ‘extreme rendition’ of terrorist suspects and the provision of ‘black sites’, where persons deemed hostile to the US were detained and routinely abused.

The response to 9/11 was also seized upon by the neoconservative ideologues that rose to power in the Bush presidency to enact their pre-attack grand strategy, accentuating regime change in the Middle East – starting with Iraq, portrayed as ‘low-hanging fruit’ that would have multiple benefits once picked.

These included military bases, lower energy prices, securing oil supplies, regional hegemony – and promoting Israeli regional goals.

The third rupture involved the continuing global economic recession that began in 2008 – and which has produced widespread rises in unemployment, declining living standards, and rising costs for basic necessities – especially food and fuel. These developments have exhibited the inequity, gross abuses, and the deficiency of neoliberal globalisation – but have not led to the imposition of regulations designed to lessen such widely uneven gains from economic growth – to avoid market abuses, or even to guard against periodic market collapses.

This deepening crisis of world capitalism is not currently being addressed – and alternative visions, even the revival of a Keynesian approach, have little political backing. This crisis has also exposed the vulnerabilities of the European Union to the uneven stresses exerted by varying national domestic capabilities to deal with the challenges posed. All of these economic concerns are complicated – and intensified by the advent of global warming, and its dramatically uneven impacts.

A fourth rupture in global governance is associated with the unresolved turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. The mass popular uprisings that started in Tunisia have provided the spark that set off fires elsewhere in the region, especially Egypt. These extraordinary challenges to the established order have vividly inscribed into the global political consciousness the courage and determination of ordinary people, particularly the youth, living in these Arab countries, who have endured intolerable conditions of material deprivation, despair, alienation, elite corruption and merciless oppression for their entire lives.

Resisting the status quo

The outcomes of these movements for change in the Arab world is not yet knowable – and will not become clear for months, if not years, to come. It is crucial for supporters on the scene – and around the world – not to become complacent, as it is certain that those with entrenched interests in the old oppressive and exploitative order are seeking to restore former conditions to the greatest extent possible, or at least salvage what they can.

In this regard, it would be a naïve mistake to think that transformative and emancipatory results can come from the elimination of a single hated figure – such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt – or their immediate entourage. Sustainable, significant change requires a new political structure, as well as a new process that ensures free and fair elections and adequate opportunities for popular participation. Real democracy must be substantive as well as procedural, bringing human security to the people – including tending to basic needs, providing decent work, and a police force that protects rather than harasses. Otherwise, the changes wrought merely defer the revolutionary moment to a later day, and the ordeal of mass suffering will resume.

To simplify, what remains unresolved is the fundamental nature of the outcome of these confrontations between the aroused regional populace and state power, with its autocratic and neoliberal orientations. Will this outcome be transformative, bringing authentic democracy based on human rights and an economic order that puts the needs of people ahead of the ambitions of capital? If it is, then it will be appropriate to speak of ‘The Egyptian Revolution’, ‘The Tunisian Revolution’ – and maybe others in the region and elsewhere to come – as it was appropriate to describe the Iranian outcome in 1979 as the Iranian Revolution.

From this perspective, a revolutionary result may not necessarily lead to a benevolent outcome – beyond ridding the society of the old order. In Iran, a newly oppressive regime resting on a different ideological foundation emerged, itself challenged after the 2009 elections by a popular movement calling itself the Green Revolution. So far this use of the word ‘revolution’ expressed hopes rather than referring to realities on the ground.

What took place in Iran – and what seemed to flow from the onslaught unleashed by the Chinese state in Tiananmen Square in 1989 – was ‘counterrevolution’ – the restoration of the old order and the systematic repression of those identified as participants in the challenge to power. In fact, the words deployed can be misleading. What most followers of the Green Revolution seemed to seek in Iran was reform – not revolution – changes in personnel and policies, protection of human rights – but no challenge to the structure or the constitution of the Islamic Republic.

Reform vs counterrevolution

It is unclear whether this Egyptian movement is at present sufficiently unified – or reflective – to have a coherent vision of its goals beyond getting rid of Mubarak. The response of the state, besides trying to crush the uprising and even banish media coverage, offers at most promises of reform: fairer and freer elections and respect for human rights.

It remains unknown what is meant by – and what will happen during – an ‘orderly transition’ under the auspices of temporary leaders closely tied to the old regime, who likely enjoy enthusiastic backing from Washington. Will a cosmetic agenda of reform hide the reality of the politics of counterrevolution? Or will revolutionary expectations come to the fore from an aroused populace to overwhelm the pacifying efforts of ‘the reformers’? Or, even, might there be a genuine mandate of reform, supported by elites and bureaucrats – enacting sufficiently ambitious changes in the direction of democracy and social justice to satisfy the public?

Of course, there is no assurance – or likelihood – that the outcomes will be the same, or even similar, in the various countries undergoing these dynamics of change. Some will see ‘revolution’ where ‘reform’ has taken place, and few will acknowledge the extent to which ‘counterrevolution’ can lead to the breaking of even modest promises of reform.

At stake, as never since the collapse of the colonial order in the Middle East and North Africa, is the unfolding and shaping of self-determination in the entire Arab world, and possibly beyond.

How these dynamics will affect the broader regional agenda is not apparent at this stage, but there is every reason to suppose that the Israel-Palestine conflict will never be quite the same. It is also uncertain how such important regional actors as Turkey or Iran may – or may not – deploy their influence. And, of course, the behaviour of the elephant not formally in the room is likely to be a crucial element in the mix for some time to come, for better or worse.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).

He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Egypt Tahrir Square – Symbol of Revolution in Different Shades

In the two weeks that have passed since Egyptians began street protests aimed at overturning president Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule, central Cairo’s Tahrir Square has become the movement’s beating heart and most effective symbol.

As long as protesters occupy the most prominent public space in Cairo – indeed in the whole country – they cannot be ignored by the international media or their own government, despite efforts by the army to contain the demonstrations and return life to normal.

Such an occupation, by hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life, requires supplies and a degree of organisation.

In the square, both have been achieved on an impressively ad-hoc basis. Leaders have emerged and committees have been formed, but the roughly 55,000 square metre "Republic of Tahrir Square" – as some inside are calling it – still operates on a mostly informal system of economy and defence.

On the perimetre of the square, teams of men – most ranging in age from early 20s to mid-40s – guard barricades made of debris and form checkpoints to ensure identification of guards and give thorough pat-downs to make sure no one brings in weapons.

Some wear laminated badges bearing the Egyptian flag, others identify their job – "Security" – with a piece of tape. Such checkpoints sprang up from the beginning of the occupation and now co-ordinate with army troops who mostly stand on the side and observe proceedings.

Past the checkpoints, a protester sometimes waits to provide visiting journalists with the number of a media co-ordinator or an international organisation to call if they have any complaints about treatment at the hands of the government or government-backed "baltageya" – thugs.

Informal economy

Farther inside, the square’s informal economy becomes immediately apparent.

Next to a man holding a board festooned with anti-Mubarak cartoons – the "Republic of Tahrir Square Information Ministry" – vendors hawk armloads of Egyptian flags (5 pounds/$0.85).

Along the curb nearby, enterprising businessmen have arranged tables and carts to sell pre-made cups of hot tea (1 pound/$0.17) and containers of koshari (3-5 pounds/$0.51-0.85), the ever-present Egyptian lentil and noodle dish.

Some have even begun striding around the square, peeking into tents to offer trays of tea, as they would in one of Cairo’s hole-in-the-wall coffee and shisha shops.

Around the centre of the square – a circular patch of tent-covered ground that once was grass but now is hardened dirt and swampy mud – men park their wagoncarts of packaged sweets (0.5 – 1 pound/$0.08 – $0.17).

Here, we are discouraged from filming by a tired-looking protester whose head is wrapped in a black-and-white checkered keffiyeh.

He apologises profusely but tells us he does not want the rest of the world to think that the square is some kind of festival. Earlier on Monday, we are told, Ahmed Shafiq, the prime minister, compared Tahrir Square to London’s famous and bucolic Hyde Park; this is no Hyde Park, the man says.

He’s right, of course. And that is one of the great dichotomies of the square.

Celebration and funeral

Fiery socialist men in their twenties and conservative older women in hijab crack jokes, gather to sing
patriotic songs, and call ebulliently for the downfall of Mubarak, but all around hang huge banners depicting in gory detail the portraits of the "martyrs," those protesters who have died over the past two weeks.

Tahrir Square is a celebration and a funeral.

The man tells us there is no committee that organises the supply of Tahrir; people simply take initiative. Friends pool money, and those with funds make purchases for the poor.

Impressively, prices do not seem to have inflated inside the square. After we say goodbye to the man in the keffiyeh, we buy a piece of bread (1 pound/$0.17) and a packet of tissues (0.75 pounds/$0.13).

Many of the volunteers in the square simply offer food for free.

As we sit on unfolded newspapers in the centre of the square speaking with Nasser Abdel Hamid, a member of the new youth negotiating committee, we are handed long bread with La vache qui rit cheese and pieces of grainy, "baladi" bread packed with sweet, peanut butter-style spread.

We are approached by a young man who asks if he can interrupt briefly.

Seif, a student at the Bahareyya Academy university, offers to help us find blankets, food and medicine if we plan on spending the night.

He says he is not a member of a committee, just a volunteer. He and his friends pooled $847 to buy medicine for protesters in the square.

Though Seif was beaten during the violence on Wednesday, he has returned, but he says people are having trouble bringing through supplies.

Firmly entrenched

Pro-Mubarak loyalists have been known to intimidate those arriving with supplies and to confiscate them on the roads leading to the square, and the army has occasionally shut down the flow of food and medicine.

But the protesters are firmly entrenched. The scattered tents and blankets that dotted the square a week ago have morphed into a semi-permanent encampment.

Protesters have driven wooden and metal stakes into the ground to anchor huge tarps and makeshift shelters that block out the chilly winter wind and bring to mind the expansive desert abodes of Egypt’s Bedouin population.

They have gutted lampposts and other electrical outlets to charge their mobile phones and power laptops that they use to project movies onto hanging cotton screens or read news on the Internet with still-operational wi-fi connections pirated from nearby buildings.

On a stage overlooking the central part of the square, next to a stuffed effigy lynched from a lamppost, protesters have built a stage complete with a fully functional, concert-level sound system.

On Monday night, a man strummed an acoustic guitar and sang protest songs to a crowd of hundreds.
A protester with an Egyptian flag wrapped around his waist tells us that that the people in the square have formed a new "social contract".

As we walked toward an exit with Abdel Hamid, the youth negotiator, he turned Shafiq’s statement on its head.

"This is better than Hyde Park," he said.

Thank You

%d bloggers like this: