China ready for next space leap
www.bbc.co.uk
China is about to launch its first space laboratory, Tiangong-1 - an important next step in the nation's quest to build and operate a manned space station.
Rocket launches Chinese space lab
www.bbc.co.uk
A Long March rocket carrying China's first space laboratory, Tiangong-1, launches from the north of the country.
Hello China, Pakistan says you are its close friend, is it true? I don't know, I don't know, but I just know that India and Pakistan are not mutual friends .... hehehhe, and you do not make friends with India,
don'tdo you?
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15106632
Pakistan PM rejects US pressure
www.bbc.co.uk
Pakistan's prime minister hits back in the row with the US, refusing to bow to pressure to step up the fight against militants active in Afghanistan.
The America also doesn't make friends with Pakistan, and the America seems a little bow to you by topic F 16's weapons sales ... well, does it mean that India must be friends with Taiwan? That's fine, just as with you are good friends with Syria and Russia. Although, unfortunately, the United States is not too friendly with Syria, because Iran is a friend of Syria. Okay, Lots of love from America to Russia.. mmmuah... Glide safely!
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15097317
Al-Qaeda in 9/11 warning to Iran
www.bbc.co.uk
Al-Qaeda accuses Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of spreading "conspiracy theories" about the 9/11 attacks in his recent speech to the UN.
UN delegates walk out during as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 66th General Assembly (AFP, Timothy A. Clary)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran (AFP, Don Emmert)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, hugs a member of the Kuwait Delegation (AFP, Timothy A. Clary)
In his speech, Ahmadinejad criticized the United States and the West as "arrogant powers" which is ruled by greed and military adventurism. Ahmadinejad's speech to be its own color of the UN General Assembly that was previously dominated by the Palestinian efforts to be recognized as independent state.
Ahmadinejad spoke at UN General Assembly forum with gusto. From the podium, he accused the West "to weaken a number of countries with military intervention, destroying the infrastructure, and plundering of natural resources to make them dependent". He repeated his comments about his doubts on the origins of Holocaust and the bomb attacks on 11 September 2001. He criticized the U.S. for choosing to kill Osama bin Laden instead of dragging him to court. Western Holocaust is to pay" ransom to Zionists. The West's cruel intentions sparked the wars and financial crisis, "Ahmadinejad said.
With rhetorical style, Ahmadinejad asked, "Who is supporting the military dictatorships in Asia, Africa, and Latin America? Who is using the September 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Who is responsible for the world's economic recession?" ...
Ahmadinejad didn't explicitly mention the U.S. as an answer to his questions, but he mentioned that the U.S. and other European countries ruled by envy and wanted to always did a military strike. On that occasion, Ahmadinejad accused the U.S. and Europe have dominated the UN Security Council in charge of international security.
"If only half of the U.S. defense budget and its allies in NATO are diverted to help to resolve the economic problems in their own country, is the U.S. going through a crisis?" he asked. Ahmadinejad called for the efforts made by working together collectively to create a new map based on the principles and common ground, such as monotheism, justice, freedom, love, and happiness. "The idea of the UN establishment must remain a great human achievement and historic. Its interests should be respected and its capacity is used for the purposes of our glorious, "he said.
Several hours after the speech, Ahmadinejad had an exclusive interview with The Associated Press. In that conversation, he doubted the 9/11 attack. He believed, 9/11 conspiracy theories just to legitimize the U.S. military aggression in Afghanistan. As an engineer, he was not sure, as solid as the WTC buildings could collapse with just a hit by two planes. "I believe the twin towers collapsed because there's a special mechanism that intentionally applied. There must have been explosives placed there intentionally to exacerbate the effects of a plane crash," he said. Therefore, he urged the international community, particularly the United Nations, conducted an independent investigation related to the incident.
US leads mass walkout of Ahmadinejad UN speech
By Tim Witcher (AFP) – 6 days ago
UNITED NATIONS — The United States on Thursday led a mass walkout of the UN General Assembly as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched an outspoken attack on Western nations.
The Iranian leader again cast doubt on the origins of the Holocaust and the September 11, 2001 attacks and criticized the United States for killing Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden rather than bringing him to trial.
European countries use the Holocaust as an excuse to pay "ransom to the Zionists," he said. The "diabolical" aims of the West are the cause of wars and the financial crisis, Ahmadinejad stormed.
In a repeat of walkouts at the United Nations and other international events in recent years, a US diplomat monitoring the speech in the UN General Assembly left halfway through the 20-minute discourse.
The 27 European Union nations then followed in a coordinated protest move.
"Mr Ahmadinejad had a chance to address his own people's aspirations for freedom and dignity, but instead he again turned to abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs and despicable conspiracy theories," said US mission spokesman Mark Kornblau.
A French spokesman called Ahmadinejad's attacks "unacceptable" in a message sent on Twitter, and the German delegation said it was protesting the "crude, anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-West tirade by the Iranian president."
Earlier Ahmadinejad had offered to halt Iran's production of low-enriched uranium -- which can be a stepping stone to producing atomic weapons -- if the West supplied Tehran with the material in return.
But he failed to mention either the nuclear crisis with the West or the Palestinians bid to join the UN as a full member state in his speech.
Iran, accused by Western nations of seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, is under four sets of UN sanctions for refusing for years to bow to international demands to rein in uranium enrichment.
"If they give us the 20 percent enriched uranium this very week, we will cease the domestic enrichment of uranium of up to 20 percent this very week. We only want the 20 percent enrichment for our domestic consumption," Ahmadinejad told The New York Times.
The European Union also offered to resume the sputtering talks with Iran over its suspect nuclear program which broke down in January.
But the invitation seemed to cut little ice with Ahmadinejad.
Some European countries "still use the Holocaust, after six decades, as the excuse to pay fine or ransom to the Zionists," he told the assembly.
The United States considered Zionism as "sacred" while they "allow sacrileges and insult" against other religions, he railed.
And on the Palestinian issue, he referred only to the imposition of "60 years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries in the region."
The EU's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton however has offered to resume talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany.
The European Union is "ready to resume talks with Iran on building confidence in the nature of its nuclear program, on the understanding that Iran is ready to enter into meaningful talks without pre-conditions," spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic said.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, who stepped up to the podium after Ahmadinejad, sharply criticized the Iranian leader.
"He didn't remind us that he runs a country where they may have elections of a sort but they also repress freedom of speech, do everything they can to avoid the accountability of a free media, violently prevent demonstrations and detain and torture those who argue for a better future," Cameron said.
Across the street from the sprawling United Nations complex, behind steel security barriers, about 400 people rallied to protest the Iranian regime under the banner of the opposition People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran.
"While Ahmadinejad is getting the podium at the world's biggest party, the Iranian people are being suppressed," said organizer Ali Safavi.
The rally was addressed by guest speaker John Bolton, the mustachioed, hawkish US ambassador to the United Nations under former US president George W. Bush.
He spoke of his scorn for the world body, branded Ahmadinejad "the world's central banker of terrorism," and proposed an undiplomatic solution.
"I believe it should be the declared policy of the United States to overthrow the regime," he said to cheers.
Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved.
By Tim Witcher (AFP) – 6 days ago
UNITED NATIONS — The United States on Thursday led a mass walkout of the UN General Assembly as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched an outspoken attack on Western nations.
The Iranian leader again cast doubt on the origins of the Holocaust and the September 11, 2001 attacks and criticized the United States for killing Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden rather than bringing him to trial.
European countries use the Holocaust as an excuse to pay "ransom to the Zionists," he said. The "diabolical" aims of the West are the cause of wars and the financial crisis, Ahmadinejad stormed.
In a repeat of walkouts at the United Nations and other international events in recent years, a US diplomat monitoring the speech in the UN General Assembly left halfway through the 20-minute discourse.
The 27 European Union nations then followed in a coordinated protest move.
"Mr Ahmadinejad had a chance to address his own people's aspirations for freedom and dignity, but instead he again turned to abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs and despicable conspiracy theories," said US mission spokesman Mark Kornblau.
A French spokesman called Ahmadinejad's attacks "unacceptable" in a message sent on Twitter, and the German delegation said it was protesting the "crude, anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-West tirade by the Iranian president."
Earlier Ahmadinejad had offered to halt Iran's production of low-enriched uranium -- which can be a stepping stone to producing atomic weapons -- if the West supplied Tehran with the material in return.
But he failed to mention either the nuclear crisis with the West or the Palestinians bid to join the UN as a full member state in his speech.
Iran, accused by Western nations of seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, is under four sets of UN sanctions for refusing for years to bow to international demands to rein in uranium enrichment.
"If they give us the 20 percent enriched uranium this very week, we will cease the domestic enrichment of uranium of up to 20 percent this very week. We only want the 20 percent enrichment for our domestic consumption," Ahmadinejad told The New York Times.
The European Union also offered to resume the sputtering talks with Iran over its suspect nuclear program which broke down in January.
But the invitation seemed to cut little ice with Ahmadinejad.
Some European countries "still use the Holocaust, after six decades, as the excuse to pay fine or ransom to the Zionists," he told the assembly.
The United States considered Zionism as "sacred" while they "allow sacrileges and insult" against other religions, he railed.
And on the Palestinian issue, he referred only to the imposition of "60 years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries in the region."
The EU's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton however has offered to resume talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany.
The European Union is "ready to resume talks with Iran on building confidence in the nature of its nuclear program, on the understanding that Iran is ready to enter into meaningful talks without pre-conditions," spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic said.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, who stepped up to the podium after Ahmadinejad, sharply criticized the Iranian leader.
"He didn't remind us that he runs a country where they may have elections of a sort but they also repress freedom of speech, do everything they can to avoid the accountability of a free media, violently prevent demonstrations and detain and torture those who argue for a better future," Cameron said.
Across the street from the sprawling United Nations complex, behind steel security barriers, about 400 people rallied to protest the Iranian regime under the banner of the opposition People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran.
"While Ahmadinejad is getting the podium at the world's biggest party, the Iranian people are being suppressed," said organizer Ali Safavi.
The rally was addressed by guest speaker John Bolton, the mustachioed, hawkish US ambassador to the United Nations under former US president George W. Bush.
He spoke of his scorn for the world body, branded Ahmadinejad "the world's central banker of terrorism," and proposed an undiplomatic solution.
"I believe it should be the declared policy of the United States to overthrow the regime," he said to cheers.
Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved.
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14665953
The evolution of the 9/11 conspiracy theories
www.bbc.co.uk
It's 10 years since 9/11 and the wealth of conspiracy theories that sprang up in the aftermath have slowly evolved.
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15028776
UN walkout at Ahmadinejad speech
www.bbc.co.uk
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fiery attack of Western nations in a speech to the UN General Assembly prompts a mass walkout by diplomats.
► http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/world/un-ahmadinejad-speeches/index.html
Walkouts and fury: A look at Ahmadinejad's U.N. speeches - CNN.com
www.cnn.com
Whether he is predicting the demise of the U.S. "empire" or questioning accounts of 9/11, Iran's president knows how to push the West's buttons at the U.N.
► http://ciscazarmansyah.blogspot.com/2011/03/friendship-in-news-18.html
Newstories: Friendship in News (18)
ciscazarmansyah.blogspot.com
► http://ciscazarmansyah.blogspot.com/2011/07/knick-knacks-about-irans-nuclear.html
Newstories: Knick-Knacks About Iran's Nuclear
ciscazarmansyah.blogspot.com
In September 2010 the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced from United Nations in New York that Iran would host an international conference on terrorism in the coming year which would discuss among other things that actually did the 9/11 attacks.
Mr Ahmadinejad, who investigated the tragedy of 9/11 in the context of the speech focused on what he called "crisis" faced by capitalism and Western-dominated world order, saying that history would record that the dominator of the world failed to use the attacks as an excuse to occupy the two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. Citing a list of conspiracy theories about who destroyed the twin towers, he said that, whoever the culprits, the United States continued to use the event to try to prolong the dying world order of domination.
Addressing the opening of annual UN General Assembly, just miles from the scene of deadly than 9/11 attacks, the Iranian leader said the United States responded to the attack by firing a "propaganda machine" to convince the world that war was a necessary response.
He said the grief to 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, but he also added that "since then hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Delegation of the United States and others walked out of Ahmadinejad's speech after he began enumerating his theories who could be behind the attacks 9/11, the second was that "some segments within the U.S. government" orchestrated the attacks to reverse the declining U.S. economy and grip in the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. Ahmadinejad said that he proposed an international conference would "study of terrorism and the means to deal with it."
Ahmadinejad didn't directly respond to the Western powers have been extended an invitation to Iran to return to talks on its nuclear program - other than to reiterate that Iran was always open to dialogue based on mutual respect and equality. But he talked at length about the global nuclear issues, criticized the nuclear weapons as an instrument of domination for some people who have them, but praising nuclear power as a source of clean and cheap energy for all.
Another stated goal for the coming year, he said, in that 2011 must be submitted "a year of nuclear disarmament" with the motto: "Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for no".
Ahmadinejad's statement was followed by several hours of statements by President Obama to the same international meeting and said that Iran was the only country that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but couldn't show to UN officials that the nuclear program of nuclear energy exclusively peaceful in nature. As if responding, Iran's leaders acknowledged the lack of full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but said Iran was carrying out the international rights.
"Yes that's right, we've never been submitted to pressure from the IAEA illegally imposed, and we never will. The fourth round of economic sanctions that has been approved earlier this year, "he said", "They only destroy the remaining credibility of the Security Council."
Although such a mundane thing, a lot of Ajmadinejad speech focused on the theological themes and a world in which he said the man's spiritual nature was obscured by materialistic pursuits. When he was often in the past, he railed at the West which destroyed the "purity and exquisiteness" of women. And he referred to the recent controversy over burning the Koran which was proposed by a Florida minister, called the move as bad, but then concluded that "the truth couldn't be burned." He then held up both the Koran and the Bible, and declared, "We honor for both of these books."
Al-Qaeda, The Enemy or U.S. Friend?
Along with the anti-Iran claims of U.S. officials accusing Tehran of supporting the militia of al-Qaeda, the group sent a video message that opposed the Syrian government. Their actions were no different from the U.S. and Zionist regime of Israel. "If possible we will make war against Syria," said al-Qaeda.
► http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-28/world/al.qaeda.leader.message_1_al-qaeda-leader-al-zawahiri-leader-osama-bin?_s=PM%3AWORLD
New al Qaeda leader slams Syrian president, praises protesters
articles.cnn.com
The new head of al Qaeda describes Syria's president as "the leader of criminal gangs, the protector of traitors," and applauds anti-government protesters seeking to topple him, in a video that appeared on extremist websites this week.
► http://www.infowars.com/western-funded-groups-continue-to-destabilize-syria/
» Western-funded groups continue to destabilize Syria Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for you
www.infowars.com
Today there are, yet again, unverified reports from so-called activist groups clashing with Syrian security forces and anti-government protestors.
► http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/13/new-al-qaeda-message-reinforces-focus-on-arab-spring/
New al Qaeda message reinforces focus on Arab Spring
security.blogs.cnn.com
By CNN's Tim Lister Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri returns to one of his favorite themes in the video released to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11: the Arab Spring.
► http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/09/13/al.qaeda.message/index.html
New al Qaeda leader releases message to mark 9/11
www.cnn.com
Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has apparently released a new message to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, in which he praises the Arab Spring as a "devastating blow" to the United States.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda leader in a message published on 7/30 agreed with the United States to oppose the rule of Bashar Assad in Syria. It's not quite satisfied to destabilize the government of Bashar Assad, the U.S. also accused Iran of working with al-Qaeda, whereas Damascus is an ally of Tehran. Surprisingly, al-Qaeda (which was mentioned in cooperation with the Iranians) even joined with White House to hostile Syria.
The al-Qaeda's attitude to hostile Syria (like the U.S. and Israel) shows the depth of cooperation between this terrorist group with the West, particularly the U.S.. To cover the cooperation between al-Qaeda and the CIA, the U.S. blamed Tehran and accused Iran of working with al Qaeda, whereas al-Qaeda was proved to be very hostile to Iran and engages in acts of terror against Iranian diplomats and IRNA reporter in Kabul.
America in the review from the inside
In May 2010, president Barack Obama gave a speech about political transformation in the Middle East and North Africa. In his speech (which was called by American officials was dedicated to Muslims), Obama mentioned the Middle East transformation, the uprising of people, the Palestinian issues and the event of Osama Bin Laden's death.
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13450481
Obama presses for Mid East reform
www.bbc.co.uk
US President Barack Obama says a "new chapter in American diplomacy" has been reached in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings.
Text
Obama’s Mideast Speech
Published: May 19, 2011
Following is a text of President Obama’s speech on the Middle East, delivered on Thursday in Washington, as released by the White House:
Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, have a seat. Thank you very much. I want to begin by thanking Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark -- one million frequent flyer miles. (Laughter.) I count on Hillary every single day, and I believe that she will go down as one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation's history.
The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith.
Today, I want to talk about this change -- the forces that are driving it and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security.
Now, already, we've done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we've removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we've broken the Taliban's momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate –- an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy -– not what he could build.
Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda's agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.
That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It's the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.
There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor's act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week -- until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.
The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -– no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.
And this lack of self-determination –- the chance to make your life what you will –- has applied to the region's economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.
In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people's grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.
But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world -– a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. And so a new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.
In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, "It's like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time."
In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, "The night must come to an end."
In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, "Our words are free now. It's a feeling you can't explain."
In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, "After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity."
Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.
Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age -– a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication –- people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we've already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.
The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.
We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America's interests are not hostile to people's hopes; they're essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda's brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.
Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.
And that's why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.
So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.
Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It's not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it's the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.
Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region. But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles –- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:
The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. (Applause.)
The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.
And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.
Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.
Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high -– as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world's largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.
Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force -– no matter how well-intentioned it may be.
But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people's call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: Keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Qaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.
While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it's not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –- including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.
The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara'a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad.
So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home. Let's remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.
Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change -- with change that's consistent with the principles that I've outlined today. That's true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that's true today in Bahrain.
Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.
Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens, and we will -- and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. (Applause.) The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they've taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States.
We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future -– particularly young people. We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo -– to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with -– and listen to –- the voices of the people.
For the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard -– whether it's a big news organization or a lone blogger. In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.
Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them.
We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities.
Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." America will work to see that this spirit prevails -– that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.
What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. And that's why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men -– by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential. (Applause.)
Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can't stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy.
After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas.
The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It's no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. For just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.
So, drawing from what we've learned around the world, we think it's important to focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America's support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy. And we're going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.
First, we've asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.
Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.
Third, we're working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. And these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.
Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. And just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.
Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -– the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts at anti-corruption -- by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable. Politics and human rights; economic reform.
Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.
For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.
I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true for the two parties involved.
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won't make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I'm aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I'm convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, "I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict." We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. "I have the right to feel angry," he said. "So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope," he said, "for tomorrow."
That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It's a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it's a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.
For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, "peaceful, peaceful." In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.
For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.
It will not be easy. There's no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.
Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you.
Source :
► http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20prexy-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Obama’s Mideast Speech - Text
www.nytimes.com
A text of President Obama’s speech on the Middle East, delivered Thursday at the State Department, as released by the White House.
In his speech, President Obama was trying to distort the direction of People's resurgence in the Middle East. Obama tried to remove the substance of anti-oppression and anti-colonialism of this popular uprising. He emphasized the image of America as a defender of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. While people in the Middle East basically didn't consider his speech was important. They demanded the United States in order to really made the changes and changed the old policy and understood correctly the political transformation in Arab world.
Supporting the Zionist regime of Israel is still a tradition for every American leaders, no exception with Barack Obama. In his speech Obama demanded the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on territory in 1967. Obama announced that the U.S. still refused the attitude of countries that wanted to put the pressure on Israel in the UN and would confront any country who wished to do so. Obama asserted, the Palestinians had to recognize the Israel's existence.
After his speech (which mentioned the importance of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state), the leaders of Zionist regime refused to withdraw up to the 1967 borders. That's not enough. A number of Republican leaders also "attacking" the Obama's statement. Senator Mitt Romney, (the 70th Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 and a candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential Nomination) said, "The American President in his speech has betrayed Israel and expressed his support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with territorial border in 1967."
Senator Tim Pawlenty, (one more presidential election candidates of the Republican Party) said that under conditions in which the Ramallah Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with Hamas, then the step taken by Obama demanded the establishment of an independent Palestinian state was a tragedy. Moreover, Americans demanded more from Israel to accept a Palestinian state with 1967 borders. Meanwhile, at the same time, Palestinian factions assessed what was stated by Obama was actually siding with this regime. Obama's speech, according to them, just a repetition and verification of the America's loyal attitude towards Israel.
Robert Gates in an interview with CBS television in May said, "It's too early to talk about accelerating the withdrawal of the U.S forces by the reason of Osama bin Laden's death." Ten years of pre and post the events of 911, the American government (at that time) asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden to Washington. At that time, Americans called the kingpin of Al Qaeda as the biggest terrorist in the United States and demanded Osama Bin Laden to be tried.
In last days, more and more demands for U.S. to immediately withdraw its troops from Afghanistan after the death of Osama bin Laden. Anti-war organizations and liberal groups (which are in the Democratic Party) demanded an immediate end to the war that has cost not less. Afghan war so far has cost nearly 400 billion dollars taken from people's taxes. It was started with the reason for Osama's presence in this country about 10 years ago. Meanwhile, the casualties of American soldiers in Afghanistan has reached one third of the 911 victims. The majority of Americans believed that killing bin Laden himself actually didn't cost that much. Moreover, since 10 years ago the world's terrorist threat was increasing.
In May, the U.S. Congress discussed the follow-up of Patriot Act provisions, investigations operations and invasion of privacy. Based on the ratification of the U.S. House of Representatives, in order to strengthen the operations of investigation, then this provision was extended to five years. In accordance with this agreement, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in voting has extended this provision for the strengthening of security operations (which had expired on May 27) up to five years. This provision regulates the use of wiretaps on suspected terrorists from the immigrant population, although it was not clear their links with the extremist groups. This provision allowed the security forces to confiscate the assets and trade documents of every person who became a suspect.
The Patriot Act law was ratified in the United States after the events of 11 September 2001. Until now this law has received much criticism since it was ratified and implemented. Civil liberties organizations in the United states this Act has violated the ultimate freedom of Americans. The law of the Patriot Act was ratified in the United States after the events of 11 September 2001.
Until now this law has received much criticism since ratified and implemented. Civil liberties organizations in the United states that this Act has violated the ultimate freedom of Americans. Democrats and Republicans emphasized the application of this Act and in the end, every form of protest and criticism related to violations of personal freedom and civil institutions and civil law in America have never succeeded.
Finally, the American Federation of Labor warned the Democrats that they would withdraw their support to this faction if the current U.S. administration insisted on continuing the existing policy. For several years, the living conditions of millions of American workers was increasingly difficult. The unemployment rate based on official data has reached 9 percent. When the number of people who are desperate to get a job is added to the unemployment rate, then the real number of unemployed in the United States more than 20 percent. Meanwhile the workers increasingly suffer from a reduction in salary and job security, because every time they must prepare themselves to face the layoffs. Simultaneously, the balancing of the federal government's welfare programs and state is more and more suppress the labours. The labor is known as the original proponent of Democrats. If the AFL-CIO members withdraw their support to Democratic party, the percentage of its candidate in the upcoming elections will be minor. It means Obama will lose one of his main supporters. When this happens, mostlikely, the Democrats in 2012 must be willing to give up the White House and Senate to its rival, Republican party.
Who is the real mastermind behind 9 / 11? What is its purpose? Is Al Qaeda involved?
►http://www.fbi.gov/boston/press-releases/2011/massachusetts-man-charged-with-plotting-attack-on-pentagon-and-u.s.-capitol-and-attempting-to-provide-material-support-to-a-foreign-terrorist-organization
Massachusetts Man Charged with Plotting Attack on Pentagon and U.S. Capitol and Attempting to Provid
www.fbi.gov
► http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/29/fbi-entrapment-rezwan-ferdaus?newsfeed=true
FBI faces entrapment questions over Rezwan Ferdaus bomb plot arrest
www.guardian.co.uk
Sting operation to arrest physics graduate, 26, raises concerns that US Muslims might be targeted using entrapment techniques.
►http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/rezwan-ferdaus-terror-plot_n_985759.html
Rezwan Ferdaus Terror Plot: 26-Year-Old U.S. Citizen, Charged With Plotting Attack On Pentagon, U.S.
www.huffingtonpost.com
A 26-year-old Massachusetts man has been arrested in connection with a plot to attack the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol using an aircraft filled with C-4 explosives.
► http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/09/29/ashland_man_charged_in_terrorist_plot/
Ashland man charged in terrorist plot
www.boston.com
An Ashland man who holds a physics degree from Northeastern University was charged yesterday with an al Qaeda-motivated plot to send explosive-laden, remote controlled aircrafts into the Pentagon and the US Capitol, according to a complaint filed in federal court.
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15101449
US bomb plot 'aimed at Pentagon'
www.bbc.co.uk
A US citizen is arrested in Boston accused of planning to bomb the Pentagon and US Capitol building, after an undercover investigation by the FBI.
► http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/29/justice/massachusetts-pentagon-plot/?hpt=ju_c2
Man indicted for allegedly plotting attack on Pentagon, U.S. Capitol - CNN.com
A federal grand jury in Boston has indicted a 26-year-old man for allegedly plotting to use model airplanes to attack the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Department of Justice said Thursday.
► http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/28/bombplot-pentagon-arrest.html
Plot to bomb Pentagon, Capitol alleged - World - CBC News
www.cbc.ca
A man has been arrested and accused of plotting to destroy the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol by attacking the buildings with large, remote-controlled aircraft armed with lethal amounts of explosives.
The roots of terrorism
Terrorism network is a professional networks and militant, a criminal network that is built with a neat, shrewd, slick and smart. So it's logical if it's referred to as extraordinary crime. Inside the network, there are various elements of mutual support, protect and advocate, converged, so it is not easy for anyone to discover the main engine or its architectural team. In addition, this network is not a conscience when it would finish off its victims.
The success of America in completing the story of Osama Bin Laden's life is a well-deserved thumbs up as an achievement, but achievement is not significant conclusion that terrorism has been weakened, because the network constructed by the terrorists appears to experience an escalation in the range of opportunities and regions. If it does not try to improve the professionalism, particularly in reading and entering the "jungle" of socio-geographical favored by terrorists, the security forces will remain behind. If one head was dead, it would grow a thousand of other heads.
The terrorist elite are able to turn and to flap their wings of ideological terrorism. They are not only adjourn in carrying out the modus operandi, but also mingled, adapt and build the community. Furthermore, from the community, they suggest the professed ideology based on militancy. Oriented movement to the ideological struggle is what conditions and unify the culture and interests. The truth claims to be launched from that path.
The ideology of terrorists like this of course can be countered with the application of state ideology maximally, and this should be indicated by the state elite, because the country's elite is a symbol of exemplary public. The society will obey and maintain the sanctity of state ideology in their daily lives if they get "treats" from their performance or service which is based on the truth, honesty and fairness as outlined by ideology.
People's suffering, poverty, social disparity, and injustice are the root of other fundamental that can make a person could be formed to be a terrorist or formed by the terrorist forces to become the cadres of terrorism.
Terrorism is born only from the policies to terrorize or to subvert its own self. Wherever the regime in this world (which has its governance patterns exclusively, discriminatory, dictator or feel has never done wrong to its people) is a description of the regime that becomes the criminogenic roots to the birth of terrorists. Attitudes and behavior of state elites that have justified the injustice and producing the practices to deceive their people is the root of social crime that encourage and accelerate the occurrence and the rise of radicalism against the government or the justification for "Vis-à-Vis Terrorism" paradigm.
Long suffering experienced by people due to starvation or unfair treatment, for example, can lead or make the people no longer able to hold patience. Finally, they formulate and launch the aggression as resistance option in the name of Jihad and suffering. They are not only obsessed will be free from the shackles of the regime, but also continue to mobilize the resistance and radical movements.
This movement is used as an option to restore the sovereignty or rehabilitate their degrees as an independent people and are entitled to welfare. The case of terrorism movement that argues for the sake of humanity, or driving with a degree of liberation of suffering is worthy to serve as the reading object for us, especially for the regime, cause, as well as explosive, radical movements and terrorism at any time can disturb the peace of society, moreover the time and place where it will occur is unpredictable.
As said by the South Yemen, "We no longer want our rights from the government. Our commitment is made, we want to separate from the North" then a determination voiced from the long-suffering will be able to explain why the Yemeni lately become a haven for terrorism network under the Al Qaeda. This case can be read as unfair treatment, discriminatory and inhuman by the regime, has encouraged a group of people to become terrorists. Terrorists can be reproduced indirectly by the pattern produced by the regime's policies which have an impact on the rampant and increasingly the acute poverty, helplessness and injustice.
Intelligent reading is not only done by formulating the tactics to fight the terrorists in repressive, but also to apply the politics of surgery for various problems being assessed as potential virus to open a wide space for the birth of radical and extreme figures, which will culminate into a terrorist.
*****
P.S: Oops, Sorry, here is still a topic of scattered, it's too good to go unnoticed.
Anwar al Awlaki
This face really makes me déjà vu. His face was so familiar with the news about Osama Bin Laden, Arab, American, Islamic Cleric, but I really have been dizzy by all the posts that I've published on this blog. O my god!
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879
Islamist cleric 'killed in Yemen'
www.bbc.co.uk
The US-born radical Islamist cleric and suspected al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry says.
►
U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed: Yemeni officials - CNN.com
www.cnn.com
American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the public face of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has been killed, the Yemeni Defense Ministry said Friday.
► http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0927_imampart1.html
Attack on America: An Islamic Scholar's PerspectivePart 1
news.nationalgeographic.com
In an interview with National Geographic, Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki of the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, shares his perspective on the tragic events of September 11 and the impact they have had on the United States and the world.
► http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0927_imampart2.html
Attack on America: An Islamic Scholar's PerspectivePart 2
In an interview with National Geographic, Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki discusses the relationship between Osama bin Laden and the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, mainstream Islamic beliefs and how they differ from those of groups such as the Taliban, and attitudes in the Middle East toward the United States.
... Ahoy, finally I found it where I've seen that face many times until it was forgotten at all ... ahahaa ... thank you for my best friend as well as my brother .... hmmm .... also my boyfriend in my childhood, the school days were unforgettable with Jan Pepijn Servaas. Dank u, Jan. 
► http://ciscazarmansyah.blogspot.com/2011/03/friendship-in-news-47.html
Newstories: Friendship in News (47)
ciscazarmansyah.blogspot.com
This is precisely : ► http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
Glenn Greenwald: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen
www.salon.com
N.Y. Times, Washington Post both report that the president has taken a step beyond where even George Bush would go.
Wednesday, Apr 7, 2010 07:08 ET
Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations. Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today. Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:
The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .
American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.
It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .
"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words," said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. "He’s gotten involved in plots."
No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that. Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist "involved in plots." These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power? Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished. The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants." Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind. Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power.
And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration's tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla? Bush merely imprisoned Padilla for years without a trial. If that's a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution -- and it was -- what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner's assassination of American citizens without any due process? All of this underscores the principal point made in this excellent new article by Eli Lake, who compellingly and comprehensively documents what readers here well know: that while Obama's "speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era," the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism. As Al Gore asked in his superb 2006 speech protesting Bush's "War on the Constitution":
Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution?Notice the power that was missing from Gore's indictment of Bush radicalism: the power to kill American citizens. Add that to the litany -- as Obama has now done -- and consider how much more compelling Gore's accusatory questions become.
If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?
If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?
UPDATE: When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.
[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
UPDATE II: If you're going to go into the comment section -- or anywhere else -- and argue that this is all justified because Awlaki is an Evil, Violent, Murdering Terrorist Trying to Kill Americans, you should say how you know that. Generally, guilt is determined by having a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused has an opportunity to defend himself -- not by putting blind authoritarian faith in the unchecked accusations of government leaders, even if it happens to be Barack Obama. That's especially true given how many times accusations of Terrorism by the U.S. Government have proven to be false.
UPDATE III: Congratulations, Barack Obama: you're now to the Right of National Review on issues of executive power and due process, as Kevin Williamson objects: "Surely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. . . . Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent. " But Andy McCarthy -- who is about the most crazed Far Right extremist on such matters as it gets, literally -- is as pleased as can be with what Obama is doing (or, as Gawker puts it, "Obama Does Something Bloodthirsty Enough to Please the Psychos").
UPDATE IV: Keith Olbermann's coverage of this story was quite good tonight -- see here.
► http://www.salon.com/news/yemen/index.html?story=%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2011%2F09%2F30%2Fawlaki
Yemen: The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
www.salon.com
Without a shred of due process, far from any battlefield, President Obama succeeds in killing Anwar al-Awlaki.
► http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15132308
Obama hails Awlaki death in Yemen
www.bbc.co.uk
Barack Obama says the death in Yemen of the US-born key al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki is a "major blow" to the terror organisation.
"In recent years, he has become the number one terrorist in the world," he added. He said, "Awlaki murder is a big success in the war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The killing of al-Awlaki is a remarkable offering of President Obama and the people of our intelligence community. But, despite the vital developments of today, we must remain vigilant, keeping in mind the presence of other terrorists who will gladly come forward to support this dangerous killer, "he said.
Ouch! This guy's face, sorry, ... I don't have political chemistry to read the expression on his face.Today too, I am plagued by disgust with the news about terrorism and America. Once again, sorry!
► http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64796.html
King praises Obama for al-Awlaki killing - Tim Mak
www.politico.com
"Al-Awlaki, has become more dangerous than bin Laden," he told POLITICO.
...... Maybe I should be lying next to him who had fallen asleep. He's a white man with blue eyes, but at least he doesn't have oily skin, and his cheeks are not pink as well as the color of the stuffed pig, no pockets of fat hanging over his cheek. His mouth is not greedy and his eyes expression is not sneaky. A very exciting face to be read further. Oyesyesyes dahling .... I'm coming. It's time for me to sleep. If you wake up early, wake me for we'll make love tomorrow morning. Mwah!