Nuclear Issue Best Solved
Via Peaceful Means
Says Najib

From Mohd Arshi Mat Daud
www.bernama.com

JEDDAH, Feb 27 (Bernama)--Problems related to nuclear energy are best resolved through peaceful means, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said Tuesday.

He said nuclear issues were best dealt through negotiations and discussion, instead of using military means, he said before delivering a keynote address at the Jeddah Economic Forum.

Najib, who is in Saudi Arabia as part of a week-long working visit covering Mecca, Medina and Riyadh, was asked on a report that Pentagon, the U.S. Department of Defence, was on the last phase in launching an attack on Iran.

His comments also come ahead of a meeting of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- the United States, France, Russia, China and Britain -- plus Germany in London Monday amid rising international tension over Iran's atomic plans.

The United Nations imposed limited sanctions on Iran's nuclear programme in December and Tehran faces possible further steps for ignoring a Feb 21 deadline to halt enrichment, which the West says Iran is using so it can make nuclear bombs.

Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil producer, insists it only wants to enrich uranium to make fuel for nuclear power plants.

On complaints of the late disbursement of relief fund for businesses affected by the recent floods, Najib said the cabinet wants the banks to quickly process and disburse the loans.

"So far, the MOF (Ministry of Finance) is satisfied with what has been done by the commercial banks."

He was also asked on the call by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that the government set up a Cabinet committee to monitor decisions taken by government-linked companies (GLCs), including Khazanah Nasional and that the committee should comprise political parties.

Najib said constructive criticism would be welcomed.

"They can set up their own committee if they want but that is outside the purview of the government. "As far as the government is concerned, the present machinery is good and the reporting goes to MOF and to the Prime Minister personally," said Najib.

On the recent physical abuse cases at the Air Force Training College in Kepala Batas, Kedah, he said if the ongoing police investigation showed that crimes were committed under the law, those involved can be charged regardless of the internal disciplinary action that had been taken.

BERNAMA

US Generals ‘Will Quit’
If Bush orders Iran Attack

By Michael Smith

and Sarah Baxter In Washington
Sunday Times, UK

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.

Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.

A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”

But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.

Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.

The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.

According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.

However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.

Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.

One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.

Posted by: Raja Petra
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=2722

Palestine Hopes
Russia Will Help
Lift Blockade

www.bernama.com

MOSCOW, Feb 26 (Bernama) -- Palestine hopes Russia will help to lift the blockade of the Palestinian people, Head of the Political Bureau of the Hamas Movement Khaled Mashaal said here on Monday.

"We appreciate Russia's role very highly. This role is very important. We hope Russia will be able to persuade the international community to lift the blockade, clamped down on the people of Palestine," Mashaal added.

He said the Hamas representatives appreciate Russia's stand and are planning to discuss in Moscow the Fatah-Hamas agreements, reached in Mecca.

"These agreements are a very important step, which should put an end to the blockade. We hope the Arab nations will back us. It is necessary to guarantee a political atmosphere, contributing to the establishment of a Palestinian State.

"Pressure should be brought to bear on Israel to make Tel Aviv recognise the right of the Palestinians to build up their own state," the Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported Monday quoting Mashaal, as saying here.

Mashaal, who heads the Palestinian delegation for consultations here.

Mashaal who called on the international "Quartet" to conduct negotiations with Israel, said at present, Israel is occupying Palestinian lands and the people of Palestine lack their own state.

The 'Quartet' should negotiate with Israel, not with us," said Mashaal, hoping that the "Quartet" will not alter its stand, and all the sides should respect the Mecca agreements.

"These accords are a very important step, which should put an end to the blockade," he said.

Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the ways to settle all these problems should be found by means of negotiations.

"We deem it necessary to strengthen the agreements, reached in Mecca between Head of the Palestine National Administration Mahmoud Abbas and the Leader of the Hamas Movement, and to actively help implement them," Lavrov stressed.

A special meeting was scheduled for March 13, which is to consider the parameters of the mechanism to help the Palestinian government.

The representatives of the Hamas leadership are planning to discuss here also some problems, linked with the coordination of the relations with the Russian leadership.

The first visit to Moscow of a Mashaal-led delegation took place on March 3, last year.

BERNAMA
http://www.bernama.com

Abdullah: OIC Needs To Focus
On Economic Development
Besides Politics

From P. Vijian
www.bernama.com

DAMASCUS, Feb 26 (Bernama) --- Islamic nations should not only focus on political issues but also concentrate on developing their economies by expanding bilateral relations among the Islamic community, Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said here today.

Member countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) should not only be concerned with political issues but also economic development through cooperation, which is very important, he said.

"But we have to be practical in our approach in widening bilateral relations, like what we are doing with Syria now," Abdullah, who is also the chairman of the 57-member OIC, told reporters during a joint media conference after meeting with his Syrian counterpart Mohamad Naji Otri here.

Abdullah said it was imperative to address issues pertaining to economic development among Islamic countries, and that the OIC had taken steps to establish financial centres and banks in various member countries.

"The cooperation among Muslim countries, whether they are in Asia or in the Middle East, and I believe, whether they are in Africa, it is important to make every effort to increase cooperation, especially in the area of economic development and investments," he said.

Today, Malaysia and Syria, both members of the OIC, stepped up their bilateral relations by establishing a Joint Commission Meeting (JCM), which is expected to hold its first meeting in May.

"The inaugural JCM between Malaysia and Syria will be held in May in order to give more focus on economic development," said Abdullah, who is on a three-day visit to Syria.

In addition, both governments had also set up a Joint Economic Commission that will enable both countries to enhance bilateral trade.

This morning, Abdullah had lengthy discussions with Syrian President Dr Bashar al-Assad, at the People's Palace, where both leaders discussed problems plaguing West Asia ranging from politics to poverty.

"As for the international issues, we discussed problems in the Middle East and, at the same time, we are also aware of the importance of addressing, besides political issues facing the Muslims, other issues like poverty," he added.

After meeting the president, Abdullah had a brief discussion with Syrian Vice-President Farouq Al Shara at his office in the capital and later met the Syrian prime minister

Both prime ministers witnessed the signing of several documents, including the Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation.

Malaysian Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu and Syrian Transport Minister Yaarob Suleiman signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Feasibility Study for the Damascus Ring Road.

BERNAMA
http://www.bernama.com

War Exhibition:
Manifestation Of A Peace-Loving Society
By Sophia Ahmad and Soraya Jamal
www.bernama.com


KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 22 (Bernama) -- "From blood and pus that rot in the soil, from skeletons that have lost their soul, snatched by weapons, the result of belligerents who show no love, the red flowers bloom beautifully, wanting to be adored.

"Those who survived are living on the vestiges of life, full of suffering, hunched, deformed, maimed and blind, war in retrospect is full of horrors, they remember now, in bitterness, in solitude."

These were two verses from the Malay poem "Bunga Popi" (Poppies) penned by national laureate Datuk Usman Awang on wars in 1955, inspired by his observations of the turbulent world then.

Humankind has passed half a decade since Usman penned the poem, yet wars and conflicts remain unending. It is clear that humankind has yet to learn their lesson from the ravages of armed conflicts.

Visitors to the "Expose War Crimes: Criminalise War" exhibition and conference held at the Putra World Trade Centre recently, entered into an unknown dimension that was full of rage, terror and violence against fellow humans.

Organised by Perdana Global Peace Organisation led by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, this conference is seen as a catalyst for the establishment of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal.

From the outset, visitors were greeted with a baby's heart-breaking cries and followed by the painful screams of abused war detainees. All these heart-rending cries that had probably caused goose pimples on many of the visitors came as a background to the continuous sound of exploding bombs and firing of weapons.

The graphic images of tortured victims shown together with replicas of the victims was also upsetting to many. It was totally unimaginable, of how cruel the perpetrators of war could be against other human beings!

The Iraqis are trapped in a viscous cycle of violence, Palestinians still undergoing bloodbath and the Lebanese still in search of reconciliation to end the periodical skirmishes.

Not only that, the exhibition revealed cruelty during the Vietnam War, the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the horrifying effects of depleted uranium, economic sanctions, killing machines and the infamous torture chambers of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay detention centres.

NEW INFO

It's clear that this exhibition proved the point that war is the scourge of humanity, besides being an eye-opener on the hegemony and cruelty of the Americans and their allies.

The first Gulf War in 1991 launched by the United States paved the way for the continuous suffering of the Iraqis, especially when the economic sanction was imposed on them.

The 13-year sanction imposed by the United Nations left 1.5 million people dead, with 600,000 of them being innocent Iraqi children who were too young to understand the conflict and misery.

What had they done to deserve such inhumane treatment? Was this the price they had to pay for the sins and ambitions of a few adults?

The sanction was carried out with only one intention, to torment the Iraqis.

Is baby powder relevant to weapon making? What is the purpose of sanitary napkins in a rebellious mission? How can a school children's textbook be related to aggression? What has wheat flour got to do with developing missiles?

These are things that are ubiquitous in Malaysia and other countries but something rare in Iraq.

Denis Halloday and Hans Christof Von Sponeck from the UN's food programme in Baghdad reportedly resigned in a show of protest against the UN sanction and this is a clear sign that UN offers nothing but lip service.

UN wisely portrays itself as a world peace body, yet many times it had acted in cohort with the aggressors.

On May 10, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then US ambassador to the UN) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five dying due to the sanction. Without challenging this figure, she infamously replied: "We think the price is worth it."

In a nutshell, for the Americans, the life of others has no value.

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB PRISON

Ali Shalal, otherwise known as "The Man in Hood" and the survivor of atrocities at the Abu Gharib prison, shocked the world when the gruesome photos of his torture was shown by the media worldwide.

The audience shed tears when he recounted his horrifying and painful experience in the infamous prison after being detained without proper investigation by the occupying forces in Iraq.

He recalled detainees at the prison being tortured and tormented with the captors using methods unimaginable to normal human minds.

The Americans have mental and physical methods to interrogate detainees which have also been practised in other detention facilities such as the Guantanamo Bay and Arabian Oil Institute.

Beaten non-stop, a jagged stick and a rifle barrel pushed into his rectum, human excreta splashed onto his face, urinated on, confined in a cell without any clothing for two weeks and electrocuted for several sessions, were some of the tortures that Shalal underwent.

"I was tied to the metal bars of my cell by an Israeli interrogator and he then played the "By the Rivers of Babylon" song by pop group Boney M continuously until the next morning. The effect on me was that I lost my hearing and I lost my mind. It was very agonising and I lost consciousness," Shalal said.

No word could describe all the agonising experience he endured during five months in captivity.

When asked how he survived the torments, Shalal said: "God provides great strength to humans to overcome this, and please don't forget us in your prayers.

"The belligerents have no love for mankind! War rages on and they find profit in the colonised land! War rages and it kills babies in their cradles! War rages on and it destroys a culture and its values!"

CRIMINALISE WARS!

The following facts justify why war should be criminalised:

* Fifty million people were killed in World War II, 70 percent were innocent civilians.

* In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total number of people who died due to the Little Boy and Fat Man atomic bombs was estimated at 230,000.

* In Iraq, the total number of civilians killed so far is estimated at between 350,000 and 950,000.

* In Lebanon, 1,200 civilians were killed by Israel last year while in Palestine 3,334 people died from September 2004 to September 2006, all because of war.

* The Vietnam War, the longest war in American history, killed two million to 5.7 million people, a large number of whom were civilians.

It's mandatory to declare war as a crime because civilians are the real casualties and the victims.

The questions that have arisen from the conference are who will listen and whether the world wants to listen in the first place?

The proposed Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal are a step forward in seeking justice for those who have been victimised by war.

The government alone cannot be championing war crime issues, while non-governmental organisations are the best medium to tackle mankind's misery.

On the other hand, a non-governmental organisation can only be successful in its efforts if it has the clout and for Perdana Global Peace Organisation this is where Dr Mahathir comes in.

Dr Mahathir managed to garner the best minds under one anti-war umbrella in elevating public-consciousness and international momentum.

It's time for us to shout confidently that we believe in peace!

"We hate war, full of killing! We cry for a never-ending peace!" -- Poppies, Usman Awang, 1955.

BERNAMA

Abdullah's Visit May Rekindle
Unsettled Golan Heights Issue
From P. Vijian
http://www.bernama.com


DAMASCUS, Feb 25 (Bernama) - The Golan Heights, an unsettled issue between Israel and Syria, is likely to gain more attention with additional pressure coming from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for an amicable solution to a prolonged discord.

Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, chairman of the 57-member OIC, is due to visit some parts of the Golan Heights when he arrives in Damascus today to begin a three-day visit to Syria.

The Golan Heights, located to the southwest of Syria, is a strategic military and water resources plateau spanning some 1,860 sq km. About 1,260 sq km of it has been under Israeli control since the Arab-Israeli war of 1967.

The area is said to provide a third of Israel's water supply and offers a strategic position to monitor military movements from the Syrian side.

It is also the meeting point of three countries -- Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan -- and its terrain cuts through the vital road to Damascus. Besides, it is a sectarian territory, a home to Muslims, Arabs, Druze and Christians.

In the Arab world, besides flashpoints like Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, the Golan Heights continues to haunt the OIC and the Muslim community, which have failed to resolve these thorny disputes for decades.

Like the Palestinians, almost 500,000 people have been displaced from their homeland, a fertile and water-rich territory that Israel has refused to give up despite international pressure over the years.

Given the backdrop of other pressing problems, like war-torn Iraq, volatile Palestine and nuclear-ambitious Iran, international attention has slightly faded away from the Golan Heights, but Abdullah's visit, as an OIC representative, could tilt the focus and tweak the attention of world leaders.

Both Syria and Israel, through backroom channels and Track 2 diplomacy (using non-governmental organisations, think-tanks and individuals), have been engaging each other to settle the issue.

A leading Damascus researcher and author, Hamad Said Al-Mawed, said some positive signs are emerging from the Israeli camp to settle the Golan Heights controversy.

"Syria is not a political or military threat to Israel now, so there is no reason why Golan should not be returned.

"The half a million displaced refugees from the Golan Heights have the right to return and want to return to their homeland," he told Bernama in an interview in the Syrian capital.

About 25,000 of the 500,000 displaced people are still residing in areas occupied by Israel, another 85,000 live in the liberated villages nearby and in Quneitra, while many others have moved to Damascus.

Among others, the dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights needs to be addressed quickly to ensure that much-wanted peace returns to West Asia, say political observers.

"Don't forget that the global focus is on the Palestine-Israel issue, even if we all know that without a solution to the Golan Heights issue, there cannot be a comprehensive settlement to the Middle East problem," commented a senior Kuala Lumpur-based Malaysian diplomat.

BERNAMA

M'sia Proposes
Islamic Nations
Sever Ties With Israel

www.bernama.com

KOTA TINGGI, Feb 24 (Bernama) -- Malaysia, as the chair of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has proposed that Islamic countries having diplomatic relations with Israel sever the ties and recall their envoys in response to the Jewish state's atrocities against the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said the proposal was put forward at an extraordinary meeting of OIC foreign ministers on Israeli aggression against the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem that was held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, two days ago.

"We suggested that Islamic countries having diplomatic relations with Israel sever the ties or recall their ambassadors temporarily to show that we are serious and do not engage in mere empty talk," he said after giving out aid donated by Bank Rakyat for flood victims.

Syed Hamid said that the proposal, though difficult to implement, was agreed to in principle by the OIC countries and that OIC Secretary-General Prof Dr Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu was following up on the matter.

He said Islamic countries should have an action plan that could be translated to the international community to resolve the problem of Palestine and which did not depend on words alone.

Atrocities

Syed Hamid said Malaysia also proposed at the meeting that Israel be referred to the Human Rights Commission over its atrocities against the people of Palestine and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is Islam's third holiest place after Mekah and Madinah.

Malaysia also suggested that the OIC obtain the advice of experts of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israeli action in Palestine for a resolution from the court based in The Hague, the Netherlands, he said.

Syed Hamid said Malaysia had also suggested that the Palestine issue should also be brought to the United Nations' Security Council and its members be asked to come up with action against Israel.

"What is happening now is that various resolutions are put forward (to the UN Security Council) but there is no action against Israel," he said, adding that the world would be saddled with the problem so long as the Jewish regime ignores international opinion on Palestine.

Malaysia, he said, would continue to raise the issue of Israeli occupation of Palestine though there may be quarters which are uneasy over Kuala Lumpur's bold stand.

Fatah

The foreign minister called on the world to respect the Palestinian unity government established after leaders of the Fatah and Hamas factions reached agreement at talks held in Mekah recently.

"Hamas' victory in democratic elections is not accepted. The unity achieved by Hamas and Fatah is not accepted. In the end, where do we place them?" he asked when commenting on the reluctance of the United States and European countries to recognise the new Palestinian government led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

On his visit to Islamabad, Pakistan, tomorrow, Syed Hamid said he would attend a meeting of foreign ministers of seven Islamic countries on the latest developments in Palestine.

The seven countries -- Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey -- would attempt to draw up a new Palestine-Israel peace plan to be forwarded to the United States, the European Union and Israel, he said.

- BERNAMA
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=248428

Report Reveals U.S. Plans
For Iran Attack

www.aljazeera.com.

The U.S.’s contingency plans for attacking Iran extended beyond nuclear facilities to include most of the Islamic Republic’s military infrastructure, the BBC reported, quoting diplomatic sources.

Although the U.S. claims that it wants the Iranian nuclear standoff to be solved through diplomacy, it refuses to rule out military action if Tehran does not halt its nuclear activities.

It is understood that any such attack would target Iran’s air and naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centers.

Diplomatic sources told the BBC that senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran, including Tehran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, as well as the nuclear reactors at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground, the sources said.

Correspondents say the trigger for such an attack includes any confirmation that Iran is working on an atomic weapons program, which Tehran strongly denies.

Second U.S. aircraft carrier arrives near Iran

The United States has stepped up pressure on Tehran by sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis and its accompanying strike group joined the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Sea of Oman but hasn’t yet entered Gulf waters, the U.S. Fifth Fleet said Tuesday.

The Stennis "entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations... to conduct maritime security operations in regional waters, as well as to provide support for ground forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said a U.S. statement.

Iran has also been carrying out military exercises in the region, including test-firing missiles and building drones that Iranian military commanders said could hit the U.S. Navy.

On Tuesday, Iranian state television reported that the Revolutionary Guards staged a war game simulating an air strike against the Islamic republic.

The report said Iran’s Revolutionary Guards land forces fought back the hypothetical air strike from enemy helicopters, planes and missiles with 620 anti-aircraft cannon and shoulder missiles.

The exercise came during a three-day "Power Manoeuvre" exercises involving 3,000 units of the elite force in 16 of Iran's 30 provinces, the second war games staged by the Guards this month.

Another excuse for attacking Iran

President Bush’s recent criticism of Iran’s alleged support for the Iraqi resistance has raised fears that his administration is considering an attack.

Earlier this month, U.S. officers in Iraq claimed that they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Shia fighters in Iraq.

However, the most senior U.S. military officer, Gen Peter Pace, later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq.

Gen Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in this.

At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the U.S. allegations were “excuses to prolong the stay" of U.S. occupation forces in Iraq.

Some analysts believe that the U.S. is now trying to provoke Iran into an action Washington could use as an excuse for an attack.

Correspondents say the fact that there are now two U.S. excuses for a strike against Iran – the nuclear program and alleged attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq – is a concern for Iranian people.

Ahmadinejad seeks unconditional talks

On Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad said he is ready for nuclear talks but only if there are no pre-conditions by Western countries.

"They tell us 'come and negotiate on Iran's nuclear issue but the condition is to stop your activities',” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in northern Iran.

"We have said that we want negotiations and talks, but negotiations under just conditions,” he added.

The Iranian President also called on Western nations to stop their own nuclear enrichment programs if they want Iran to do the same.

Middle East analysts have recently warned of the catastrophic consequences for any military action against Iran.

A recent report by a coalition of British charities, faith groups and unions warned that any attack against Iran would be “highly dangerous” and “counter-productive”.

Sir Richard Dalton, the British ambassador to Iran until last year, also warned that “recourse to military action - other than in legitimate self-defense - is not only unlikely to work but would be a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world.”

Last December, the UN Security Council passed a resolution imposing limited trade sanctions against Iran for its failure to halt uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

The Council also demanded Tehran to freeze its enrichment activities by February 21. If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this in a report due to be released this week, the resolution states that further economic sanctions will be considered.

--AJP and agencies
www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=13205

Is the Bush Administration
Behind The Bombings In Iran?

By Peter Symonds
www.wsws.org

Two bombings this week in Zahedan in southeastern Iran are the latest in a series of incidents involving armed opposition groups based among the country’s ethnic minorities. The most recent attacks again raise questions about the activities of the US military and CIA inside Iran as the Bush administration intensifies its preparations for war.

The first blast killed at least 11 members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who were travelling in a bus from their housing compound to a military base. After forcing the bus to stop, the attackers triggered explosives packed in a car. Another 31 people were injured in the explosion. A further bombing, followed by sustained clashes between police and an armed group, was reported yesterday.

Jundallah, a Sunni extremist group based among Iran’s Baluch minority, claimed responsibility for the Wednesday bombing. Iranian police have already rounded up some 65 people allegedly connected to the organisation, along with explosives and weapons. Zahedan is the capital of Sistan-Baluchistan province, which borders Pakistan and Afghanistan and is home to Iran’s estimated 1-2 million ethnic Baluchis.

According to provincial police chief Brigadier General Mohammad Ghafari: “A video seized from the rebels confirms their attachment to opposition groups and some countries’ intelligence services such as America and Britain.” An unnamed Iranian official told the Islamic Republic News Agency yesterday that one of those arrested had confessed that the attack was part of US plans to provoke unrest in Iran. “This person who was behind the bombing confessed that those who trained them spoke in English,” he said.

Proof

The Iranian authorities have provided no definitive proof of US or British involvement with Jundallah. Neither the video nor any further evidence has been released. However, the attack on the IRGC bus took place amid a propaganda campaign being waged by the Bush administration accusing the IRGC’s Quds Force of arming anti-US insurgents in Iraq. President Bush has vowed to break up alleged Iranian networks and authorised the US military to kill or capture Iranian agents.

US officials insist that American forces are targetting Iranian agents inside Iraq, not in Iran itself. No more credibility should be placed in these denials than in US claims that it has no plans for attacking Iran. Over the past year, the Bush administration has boosted its funding for “regime change” in Iran, including support for Iranian opposition groups. Moreover, there are growing signs that Washington is taking an active interest in exploiting unrest among Iran’s numerous ethnic minorities and may be covertly assisting armed groups such as Jundallah.

An article in the latest issue of the Washington Quarterly entitled “Iran’s ethnic tinderbox” noted: “According to exiled Iranian activists reportedly involved in a classified US research project, the US Department of Defense is presently examining the depth and nature of ethnic grievances against the Islamic theocracy. The Pentagon is reportedly especially interested in whether Iran would be prone to a violent fragmentation along the same kinds of fault lines that are splitting Iraq and that helped to tear apart the Soviet Union with the collapse of communism.”

Veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh, who has many contacts in the American intelligence establishment, published several articles in the New Yorker last year pointing to US activities inside Iran. In an article last November entitled “The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?” he wrote:

Kurdish

“In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together with a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as ‘part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran.’ The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri and Baluchi tribesmen and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime’s authority in northern and southeastern Iran.”

Various opposition parties and organisations exist among Iran’s ethnic minorities that have legitimate grievances about the anti-democratic methods used not only by the current theocratic Shiite regime, but by the previous US-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi to suppress dissent. Such groups not only point to religious, language and ethnic discrimination, but to economic neglect.

Most Baluchis, for instance, belong to the Sunni Islamic sect—a minority in predominantly Shiite Iran. The province of Sistan-Baluchistan is one of the most economically backward in the country. Large areas are mountainous or desert, and Iranian security forces have fought a long-running war to halt smuggling and drug running across the border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unemployment is estimated to be 30-50 percent, which is high even by Iranian standards, and poverty is widespread.

Jundallah is a shadowy organisation formed in 2003 and led by a 23-year-old, Abdulmalak Rigi. Iranian officials allege that it has links with Al Qaeda but have provided no proof. Even if true, such a connection does not preclude the group’s involvement with US intelligence, which was responsible for helping to establish Al Qaeda in the 1980s in its holy war against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. Jundallah almost certainly has connections with armed Baluch separatists fighting in Pakistan.

Jundallah

Over the past year, Jundallah has claimed responsibility for a series of attacks on Iranian officials and security forces. In an interview with the British-based Telegraph in January 2006, spokesman Abdul Hameed Reeki boasted that the group had 1,000 trained fighters. While denying any connection with the US or Pakistani governments, he made a definite appeal for Western aid. Jundallah fighters, he declared, had the dedication needed to defeat the Iranian army—particularly if some help were to prove forthcoming from the West.

Reeki’s appeal reflects the venal calculations of sections of the Baluch elite who, like their counterparts among Iran’s Azeri, Kurdish, Arab and other minorities, are considering the potential benefits of aligning themselves with Washington in a military conflict with Iran. US support for such layers has the potential to create an even greater catastrophe than in neighbouring Iraq, where the American-led invasion has triggered an escalating sectarian civil war.

In its comment on Wednesday’s bombing, Stratfor certainly considered “this latest attack against IRGC guards was likely carried out by armed Baluch nationalists who have received a boost in support from Western intelligence agencies.” The think tank, which has close connections to US intelligence and military circles, went on to point to an escalating covert war being waged by the US and Israel to destabilise the Iranian regime.

“The US-Iranian standoff over Iraq has reached a high level of intensity. While the hard-line rhetoric and steps toward negotiations absorb the media’s attention, a covert war being played out between Iran on the one side, and the United States and Israel on the other, will escalate further. While Israel appears to be focused on decapitating Iran’s nuclear program through targeted assassinations, the United States has likely ramped up support for Iran’s variety of oppressed minorities in an attempt to push the Iranian regime towards a negotiated settlement over Iraq,” Stratfor wrote.

Israel

Israel’s “targeting assassinations” is a reference to the suspicious death last month of top Iranian nuclear scientist Ardeshir Hassanpour. In an article entitled “Israeli Covert Operations in Iran”, Stratfor noted that while the official announcement—a week after the scientist’s death—claimed Hassanpour died of overexposure to radiation, the details were murky. Citing “Stratfor sources close to Israeli intelligence”, the article declared that “Hassanpour was in fact a Mossad target” and pointed to allegations of Mossad’s involvement in the killing of top Iraqi scientists during the 1980s.

While no proof has surfaced of the direct involvement of American intelligence agencies in the latest bombing in Zahedan, the US is certainly engaged in inflaming ethnic and political opposition inside Iran. Stratfor offers the rather benign interpretation that the purpose of such reckless and illegal activities is simply to press Tehran to reach a negotiated settlement with the US over its list of demands. Even if that were the case, the US military build-up in the Persian Gulf, its propaganda campaign and tightening economic restrictions against Iran—along with its covert activities inside the country—all serve to heighten a conflict that could rapidly spiral out of control.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/bomb-f17.shtml

U.S. Should Pull Out Of Iraq
Says Abdullah
www.bernama.com

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 17 (Bernama) - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today said the occupation of Iraq by the United States of America (US) and its allies must end and that the people of the war-torn nation must be allowed to administer their country.

"I have always felt at the time that the States (the US and its allies) should leave and let the Iraqis sort out their problems because in some ways I believe the presence of the United States forces does give reason to certain groups to continue to behave, or to resort to acts of terror in the way they have done," he said.

Abdullah, who holds the chair of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), also believed that the international community ought to get the Iraqis to make every effort possible to reduce the sectarian conflict there.

Speaking in an interview with Al-Jazeera, aired this evening, he said while there was a perception that Iran was interfering in Iraq, the parties to the conflict would also need to engage Iran because "Iran was a big factor in the Middle east policy".

He also disagreed with the US' view that terms be imposed before the superpower began talks with Iran, which was now developing nuclear technology.

"You cannot engage any group by saying that `these are my terms' first, now we talk, you can't do that. If you want to have a dialogue talk about the terms, discuss the terms, engage them. But this is not done. I have always had my belief even when I was Foreign Minister. I always say engagement is better than containment," said Malaysia's fifth Prime Minister.

Questioned on his views about Iranian President Ahmadinejad, he said the Iranian head of state was being pushed to a corner and when that happened, it would be difficult to predict how he would react.

Abdullah said, however, it was unlikely that Iran would launch a military offensive against Israel as this would be "disastrous".

He also believed that the US would not launch an offensive against Iran especially after the superpower's experience in Iraq.

"I would not believe that having experienced the situation in Iraq, and that is not a good experience in Iraq, faced with the increasing opposition of Americans towards his (US President George W. Bush) policy, I don't think the President would then go for Iran in the way he has done in Iraq," he added.

- BERNAMA

Singapore's Testy Relations
With Its Neighbours

By Datuk Ahmad Rejal Arbee
www.beritakmu.net

Singapore’s testy relations with its neighbours has been brought to the fore yet again with new charges by its law makers who try to give the impression that the island republic is being victimised. Such stance has always been the ploy of the republic whenever it faces problems with its closest neighbours Indonesia and Malaysia and for over a year now also with its former close buddy Thailand.

Such unneighbourly relations are again the subject of discussions in its parliament earlier this week with charges that its neighbours are envious of its success. They never seem to want to own up to the fact that they could be in the wrong and that they are insensitive to others. Why should the neighbours be envious of its progress? But what can you expect from a kiasu state?

The latest in the series of spats it seems to be having with its neighbours is over the sale of sand from Indonesia. Earlier this week the Indonesian authorities decided to ban the sale of land sand – needed by the construction sector as cement mix for the construction industry. The ban will definitely affect the construction sector in the republic as it now needs to source its requirement from other more distant countries. And as is always the case it tries to play down the effect saying that at most it would add a mere one or two percent in construction cost. But at the same time Indonesia is harshly criticised for the decision.

Indonesia has in 2003 already banned the sale of its marine sand needed by the republic for its huge land reclamation project. This follows a similar ban by Malaysia earlier. This had to some extent affected its very ambitious project to increase its original land mass from 581.5 sq km, to some 820 sq km by 2020. By 1990 it had already expanded to 633 sq km.

What happened in this sand saga again showed how insensitive it can be to its neighbours. Nothing seems to matter to them so long as they benefited. Sand as a commodity has been reported to support a US$200 million a year business, allegedly protected by the Indonesian navy and police and customs, the Riau regional administration, and top figures from the Jakarta elite from the time of President Suharto.

Sand

At one time the Indonesians involved in this received only S$1.53 per cu meters paid by international sand brokers who then sold the sand to Singapore construction companies at S$15 per cu meters. HDB then sold the reclaimed land at market rates in excess of S$850 per square meter.

It has also been reported that some 54 dredgers from Belgium, the Netherlands, Russia and South Korea out of a total of 70 such vessels worldwide were operating in the Riau waters during the height of the ‘sand mining’ saga.

There were also questions of how much sand has been taken, leading to suspicions that some sand smuggling has taken place. For example in 2001 Indonesian official data showed it exported less than 75 million cubic meters, while Singapore's import data records 300 million cubic meters. At that time Singapore in fact reported that they had by then imported 1.8 billion cubic meters, while Indonesian figures showed exports of only 167 million cubic meters.

But the upshot to all this is that the marine ecosystems and habitats in the affected islands in Riau province have been damaged irreparably from the uncontrolled sand extraction. It has also led to the disappearance of a number of small islets in the province. In fact Nipah Island, one of 83 border islands serving as points of reference for Indonesia's sea borders, is at the center of Singapore's current dispute with Jakarta. Nipah lies dead in front of the main reclamation work and is now almost submerged.

It has been pointed out that if the island sinks completely the international boundary between Indonesia and Singapore will be compromised - to Singapore's advantage. The Convention on the Law of the Sea states that marine territory is measured based on the coastal base line. Jakarta is concerned that in the future, some Riau land could thus be claimed as Singapore's on the basis that if Singapore gets wider, its territorial line will also get wider.

Marine

The Institute of Indonesian Forestry Studies, an organisation based in Riau province, is planning to charge Singapore with destroying the marine environment and mangrove forests as well as causing the disappearance of an island in Karimun subdistrict. The Institute's director, Andreas Herykahurifan, was quoted as saying the Riau administration must also bear responsibility because it had issued licences to sand-dredging companies. Since sand dredging started in 1979, coral reefs have been destroyed and fishing has suffered.

But Singapore’s Minister of National Development Mah Bow Tan told Parliament earlier this week that the claims were not justified, and that the price of the exports was supposed to factor in environmental degradation. "Based on what we know, the Indonesian sand suppliers who are licensed by the Indonesian government are obliged to plow some of their proceeds into environmental reconstruction, and that is built into the price of the sand," he said. But he was silent on the amount Indonesia actually received against what Singapore pays.

Its Foreign Minister George Yeo just dismissed Indonesia's contention that the ban was to protect the sprawling archipelago's national borders. "It is not possible for Indonesia's export of land sand to affect its maritime boundaries," said Yeo in the same Parliament session.

But quite apart from the belated realisation of the negative effect of the sand dredging on the eco-system, the ban was in fact Indonesia’s retaliation to the republic’s belligerence in agreeing to Indonesia’s request for an extradition treaty between them. Indonesia had been wanting for such a treaty for a long time viewing it as vital in its efforts to curb corruption.

Notorious

Singapore is notorious for being a sanctuary for Indonesian white collar criminals and other fugitives using the republic’s financial houses to park and/or launder their ill-gotten gains. Singapore just closed one eye to all these shenanigans so long as it stands to benefits. Most of these elements are Chinese but also include some politicians.

Last year during the visit of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Singapore finally agreed to negotiate for the treaty. But the process has been ridiculously drawn out. At least six rounds of talks have been held. Indonesia is angry and feels that Singapore is purposely putting up unreasonable hurdles.

But why should Singapore be slow? Probably because it is a haven for Indonesian crooks on the run, and they bring their money with them. Billions of dollars in corruptly obtained funds have flowed into Singapore's property market and its banks. Thus it is to Singapore’s advantage not to have such a treaty and so the laboriously slow progress in having one.

The sand saga had at one time also involved the sale of Malaysian sand until it was banned when the government suddenly realised that the reclamation works on Tuas, Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin, Pulau Serangoon dan Punggol and others was affecting usage of the port of Tanjung Pelepas and Pasir Gudang. Malaysia felt that the reclamation work could obstruct ships headed for the US$1 billion state-of-the-art Tanjung Pelepas port, just half an hour's sailing time from Singapore Port.

Malaysia in fact felt that the project was designed to obstruct shipping and sabotage the progress of the port, being promoted to rival Singapore's. Singapore is also peeved that a number of major shipping lines had made Tanjung Pelepas their port of call bypassing Singapore. So is it any wonder that Singapore had nonchalantly ignored our concerns?

Reclaimation

Malaysia has lately also realised that the reclamation works had not only narrowed the sea lane for vessels coming into the two ports but made it shallower. The sea will also be made shallower thus making it extremely difficult for ships to come into the two ports. Even if they can, they will have to first go into Singapore waters. This was felt to be part of Singapore's ploy to get ships to go to its ports instead of Malaysian ports. Malaysia feels that recent decision by several large shipping companies to go to Malaysian ports instead of Singapore's was what prompted Singapore to carry out the reclamation work.

More recently the Menteri Besar of Johore, Datuk Seri Abdul Ghani Othman, questioned whether the reclamation especially at Pulau Tekong had not contributed to the massive flooding in Kota Tinggi. Ghani said the floods were due to the narrowing of the Johor River mouth caused by reclamation on Singapore's Tekong island located opposite the waterway. He said the river burst its banks after excess rain water could not flow out to the sea fast enough.

It would be difficult to determine if this reclamation project is indeed the cause of the river not being able to discharge the flood waters as quickly as before unless we have evidence to show that the river’s mean velocity has indeed been reduced by the project.

It is basic science that if something is obstructing the flow of water, the flow will be affected but the actual quantum should be based on proper measurements studies on the change in the characteristics of the river. Malaysia w3ill not be able to stick to its contention if the water flow average velocity is not monitored or the rate of silting along the river course and mouth as well as changes in the tides are not measured.

A team from Utusan Malaysia who took a boat ride to check on the reclamation there and ascertain if it could have caused the bad flooding found the reclamation had resulted in Pulau Tekong coming too close to Malaysia, said. The team found Singapore had reclaimed land far into the sea towards Malaysia and the waters on the Singapore side have become so narrow that it could not be used even by small boats. The reclamation had also made the Johor River and the Straits of Johor shallower and this had affected the water flow.

Water

This problem between Malaysia and Singapore is quite apart from all the other outstanding issues now held in abeyance. These include the sale of water, CPF contributions, the KTM land in the republic and over flying rights by SAF fighter/interceptors.

The problem with the island republic is that it is a small island state (described by former Indonesian President B.J. Habibie as a mere dot on the map). But it tries to compensate its size by flexing its muscles with the sheer size of its fire power built up over the years at an annual cost in excess of S$5 billion a year. It spends about ¼ of its annual operating budget to defense.

The tiff with Thailand began in Jan last year when the Singapore government’s octopus like Temasek Holdings bought a major shareholding in the Thaksin Sinawarta’s telecoms giant Shin Corporation when he was the Prime Minister. Various groups in Thailand charged that there were improprieties in the transactions resulting in widespread opposition to the sale. It made Thaksin the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national and strategic importance to a foreign entity, and hence selling out his nation.

The sale caused great controversy in Thailand with accusations of conflicts of interest by Thaksin. To compound matters the transaction was exempt from capital gains tax following an amendment to the Thai laws over foreign investments in the telecoms sector only three days prior to the sale.

Quite apart from this the Thais were also peeved over the fact that such a strategic industry is now in the hands of a foreign government’s entity. A subsidiary of Shin Corp, Shin Satellite operates four satellites owned by the Thai government. The current Thai government is determined to get the satellites back. Its army commander and strongman, Sothi Boonyaratkalin was quoted as saying: “Singapore is a small country that lacks any farming area, but they are rich capitalists and brokers who can buy our assets. I am concerned about our national assets that were bought. I want my assets back especially the satellites.”

Recourses

The republic is without much resources and yet due to the determination, resourcefulness and craftiness that at times borders on being stealthy it has managed to develop itself into a well oiled services centre – finance, shipping and air services hub, import export, IT and even the biggest oil refining centre for the region thereby pushing itself into the league of being a developed nation.

But apart from the lack of resources it also lacks humility mainly because it equates such a trait to being submissive. So in its relations with neighbours this is the attitude it always adopts by not willing to give and take. The republic likened such a stance to being weak and will then be at the mercy of the neighbours.

So it will stick to the rules with no room for discretion or in an agreement it will stick to every word of the agreement never giving way to other’s interpretation to the extent of even discarding the spirit of that agreement.

They could not care less about sensitivities of neighbours. What is of concern is the republic’s own wellbeing without so much as a care for the sensitivities of the neighbours.

Thus it took in Israeli advisors for defence and security. So the island has now become a big fortress. Now and then it reminds its citizens how vulnerable it is to pressures by its neighbours as if it is ripe for the picking for invasion.

Defence

It deluded itself as if Malaysia wants to overrun it and bring it back under Malaysia’s tutelage. This delusion is being fostered to justify its huge defence and secutiry spending.

With the help of Israeli advisers – drawing parallel to Israel surrounded by Arab states just as it being surrounded by Malay states of Indonesia and Malaysia - it has gone on a spending spree to turn the island into a fortress with emphasis on its Air Force. With what it terms as its 3G air force equipped with the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world, the Falcon F16D fighters as well as Apache helicopter gunships and AWACS, the objective is to detger any untoward adventure towards it. Because of its lack of space most of its fighter squadrons are based in the US, Australia, Taiwan and even France.

To justify such huge spending on machines of war its leaderships has gone on record to paint a picture of how vulnerable it is to attacks and thus need to have the fire power to deter anyone from undertaking such an adventure.

It gives the impression that Malaysia is one potential aggressor simply ignoring the fact that it was not wanted by Malaysia in the first place when the Tunku decided to kick it out of the fledging Malaysia in 1965.

With the collaboration of US and Australia with whom it maintain very strong relationship and cooperation – I remember once coming back from LA sitting beside a Malaysian navy rear admiral who mentioned about the highly secret naval facility in Monterrey near San Fransisco which no Malaysian naval officer been allowed to even be near but the US easily accommodated Singapore naval officers for training there.

http://www.beritakmu.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5751

UK: British Police Tactics
To undermine Muslims
Revealed
By Ali Cordoba
www.worldfutures.info

British police has devised a Machiavellian plan to target Muslim youth and accuse them of terrorism. The arrest of several Muslim youth in Birmingham a week ago and the release of two of them coincide with the plan to undermine Muslims in Britain. World Futures investigates the profiling of Muslims in Britain.

The British government has started a campaign to prevent Muslims from migrating in England and anywhere in the UK. This is followed by the refusal to allow any more Muslims to seek asylum in the former colonialist nation. To achieve this, Muslims in the country will be targeted under anti-terrorism laws to pin point the existence of threats if Muslims are to flock into Britain.

Muslims are the automatic suspects of any possible acts of terror on British soil. The Birmingham arrest and the arrest of many other Muslims on the simple assumption that they may be linked to terror organizations are part of the nation wide plan.

It is can be seen that Muslims are not seriously involved in a secret or open war against Britain or the Americans, much less against the West. What we are witnessing across the world is the natural reaction of angry Muslims against the Western bullying of Muslim nations.

Gestapo

It is clear that most of the arrested men and women in England had nothing to do with the crimes they were ‘suspected’ for. It is a vile plan by the British government of Tony Blair and his ‘gestapo’ style police. Arresting Muslims and keeping them in jail for 30 days before charging them for some remotely possible terror acts is not new since 911.

However, the government of Britain seems to have accelerated the number of arrests and created more avenues for condemning Muslims for their non-condemnation of what the West tags as terrorism.

Britain is simply following the George Bush principle of ‘you are either with me or against me’ on the war on terror.

Muslims across the world are angered by events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, UK, Spain, and Palestine, Lebanon and even in parts of South East Asia and across the world’s continents.

Profiling

Muslims are reacting angrily and violently to the killings of thousands of Muslims, the arrest of thousands more and the occupation of Muslim lands by the US-UK-Israeli forces. They are not committing terrorism to overthrow regimes in the West, which they are not capable of being minorities in European nations and in the US.

A majority of Muslims in Britain believes the country has become a police state targeting Muslims. This type of Muslim profiling is not rare in Western nations though Muslims are still welcomed as migrants and asylum seekers across Europe. This will not be for long though since Europe will probably follow the steps taken by Britain to control the population growth of Muslims in the country.

France is also turning into another anti-Muslim nation. The coming Presidential elections in France will probably elect a candidate who will campaign against the presence of Muslims in France. The two high flying candidates to replace Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy who is Minister of Interior and Segolene Royale the first ever woman candidate in France have plans to curb on migration from Muslim nations.

In Britain any arrest of Muslims is seen by the government and the press as fresh attempts to combat the ‘growth of Islamic extremism’ in the country. Stirring tensions after the arrest, the authorities claims that tension will be running high in the areas where the Muslims are large minorities or are in the majority. This then prompt the British police to put the entire Muslim community under constant surveillance.

Police State

Abu Bakr, one of two suspects released early this week (February 7, 2007) by West Midlands Police, said he was "taken aback" when he learned of the alleged plot to behead a Muslim soldier.

"It's a police state for Muslims," Mr Bakr told the BBC. "It's not a police state for everyone else, because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims," he said.

"That's quite an open fact because the people who have been arrested under terrorism laws, the groups that have been banned under the terrorism laws, the people that have been affected by terrorism legislation, have been Muslims.

"So we are feeling the brunt of it all. We are the ones that are being locked up, detained, and then told to go back to our lives."

Terrorism

West Midlands Police said on Monday they had finished their searches of 18 residential and commercial properties raided last Wednesday and Friday. They failed to say whether they found any evidence of terrorism plots. These houses are all Muslim owned houses.

Detectives were granted a further 72 hours yesterday to question the seven other suspects.

Eight of the suspects were picked up in a series of dawn raids last Wednesday while the ninth was stopped on a motorway in the city several hours later.

The alleged plot involved a plan to abduct and behead a Muslim British soldier, according to sources.

Plots and scripts written in advance against Muslims are being followed by the British police, pushed by Tony Blair’s government in a bid to scare the Muslims out of Britain, said an observer who spoke to WFOL.

http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/guests.php?itemid=2390

The Bush administration’s
Economic War On Iran
By Peter Symonds

Amid the continuing US military build up in the Persian Gulf, the Bush administration is already conducting an economic war against Iran aimed at bringing the country to its knees. The most overt element of this campaign is the attempt by the Treasury Department and other US agencies to force governments, major banks, oil corporations and other businesses in Europe and Asia to cut off investment, loans and financial arrangements with Tehran.

US demands go far beyond the limited sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council in December over Iran’s nuclear programs. They hit directly at the economic ties with Iran established by Europe and Asia over the past decade or so. The Bush administration’s campaign makes clear that its chief objective in the confrontation with Tehran is to reassert US dominance over the energy-rich country at the expense of its rivals. American claims that Iran is making nuclear weapons and “meddling” in US-occupied Iraq are simply convenient pretexts.

Washington has already indicated it will push for tougher sanctions when Iran is again brought before the UN Security Council on February 21. Meanwhile, American officials have exploited the looming threat of war as well as existing US legislation, which provides for penalties against US or foreign companies investing in Iranian energy reserves, to strong-arm European banks and firms into cutting ties.

In late January, the US made a concentrated effort to block Iranian attempts to attract desperately needed capital to upgrade and extend its oil and gas infrastructure. One European executive told the Washington Post that a US State Department official had bluntly warned that Iran was “hot and going to get hotter”. Another executive said: “The [US] administration is putting the full-court press on foreign companies and is going all out to impress upon them that it would be a mistake to do anything with [Iran].”

Threats

Not surprisingly, Washington’s bullying and threats have provoked resentment in government and business circles in Europe. A European oil consultant told Associated Press: “All the oil companies will tell you that they are having regular visits from the US embassies in their countries... Nobody in Europe is going to give up the opportunity of doing business with Iran just for the sake of pleasing the Americans.”

The targetting of oil companies was aimed at undermining a meeting in early February in Vienna organised by National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) to offer new oil blocks to foreign investors. Despite American threats, more than 200 representatives from over 50 international oil companies attended. Just a week earlier, the Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell ignored US pressure and signed a multi-billion deal with Iran to develop a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project based on the South Pars field.

The Bush administration has no intention of letting up. Speaking on February 7 in Munich, the US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Gregory Shulte, declared: “Let me be frank: From the US perspective, the Security Council took too long and produced too little. European countries can do more—and should do more.”

Shulte specifically targetted the provision of government loans to facilitate trade, asking: “Why, for example, are European countries using export credits to subsidise exports to Iran? Why, for example, are European governments not taking more measures to discourage investment and financial transactions?” According to the US, European governments provided Iran with $18 billion in loan guarantees in 2005. These included Italy $6.2 billion; Germany $5.4 billion; France $1.4 billion; and Spain and Austria $1 billion each. The US is also pressuring major international banks to cut off ties with Iran.

Blockade

The provision of government-sponsored trade credit is a widespread international practice. It is neither illegal nor does it contravene the provisions of the UN sanctions on Iran. Washington’s determination to choke off economic relations with Tehran is aimed as much at its rivals as against Iran. Over the past decade, the European Union (EU) has become Iran’s largest trading partner, selling machinery, industrial equipment and other commodities in return for energy supplies. The US, on the other hand, has almost no trade with Iran, having maintained a virtual economic blockade on the country since the ousting of close American ally, Shah Reza Pahlavi, in 1979.

European governments and corporations are not the only targets. China faces the prospect of US retaliation over its trade deals with Iran. Iran and China’s biggest offshore oil producer, CNOOC, announced in December a preliminary deal worth an estimated $16 billion to develop Iran’s offshore North Pars gas field. The agreement is already being investigated by a US congressional committee to determine whether economic penalties can be brought against CNOOC under the recently renewed Iran Sanctions Act.

India has been threatened with the same Act, which provides for US sanctions against any foreign company that invests more than $40 million in Iran’s energy sector. The US ambassador to India, David Mulford, pointedly announced that he had informed India’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee of the legislation prior to the minister’s trip to Iran last week. India is involved in a major $7 billion gas pipeline project from Iran through Pakistan, a project that the US has opposed.

The Bush administration has been pressuring Russia to halt work on Iran’s nuclear power plant at Bushehr, which is virtually complete. After the $1 billion contract is finished, Russia has the prospect of further large construction deals as Tehran plans to build additional power reactors. Washington has also sharply criticised Russia’s sale of arms to Iran, including its recent purchase of advanced anti-aircraft missile systems.


Weapon

A comment last month in the London-based Times entitled, “New US strategy on Iran emerges from Davos,” characterised the Bush administration’s economic offensive as “an economic pincer movement consisting of financial diplomacy on one side and energy policy on the other”.

The first half of the pincer is aimed at cutting Iran off from international finance and trade. Iran is the world’s fourth largest producer of oil, but desperately requires investment to upgrade and expand its infrastructure. According to the article, the second half involves deliberately depressing world oil prices in order to undermine Iran’s income from oil exports. The Bush administration’s chief ally in the attempt to lower oil prices is Saudi Arabia, which regards Iran as its main regional rival and, as the world’s largest producer, is able to expand production to rein in prices.

The Times article explained: “Iran’s economy depends entirely on oil sales, which account for 90 percent of exports and a roughly equal share of the government’s budget. Since last July, a barrel of oil has fallen from $78 to just over $50, reducing the government’s revenues by one third. If the oil price fell into the $35 to $40 range, Iran would shift into deficit, and with access to foreign borrowing cut off by UN sanctions, the government’s capacity to continue financing foreign proxies would quickly run out. Iran has reacted to this threat by calling on OPEC to stabilise prices but, in practice, only one country has the clout to do this: Saudi Arabia.

“Earlier this month, in a highly significant statement, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi Oil Minister, publicly opposed Iranian calls for production cuts to halt the decline in prices. Mr Naimi’s pronouncement was cast as a technical matter unconnected with politics, but it seemed to confirm private warnings by King Abdullah that his country would try everything to thwart Iran’s hegemony in Iraq and throughout the region, whether by military intervention or more subtle economic means.”

Saudi

Iran’s production costs at $15-18 a barrel are far higher than Saudi Arabia’s $2-3 a barrel, so lower world prices would hit Tehran far more than Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has, of course, denied any political motive behind its refusal to cut production and lift oil prices. The Times, however, is not alone in speculating about a deliberate Saudi-US strategy to undermine the Iranian economy.

Commenting on falling oil prices, the New York Times noted last month that other motives, than purely commercial ones, “seem to be at work, too, including the Saudis’ desire to restrain Iran’s ambitions in the region. How much influence the United States has exerted is an open question. Vice President Dick Cheney met with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh in November, but his office would not say if oil was discussed. The White House has been supportive of the Saudi energy policy, and President Bush and his father are close with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security minister and former ambassador to Washington.”

A US-based Saudi security adviser Nawaf Obaid, who, like Prince Bandar bin Sultan, advocates a more aggressive Saudi policy to block Iranian influence, openly floated the idea of using oil prices as an economic weapon in an article in the Washington Post in November. “If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices,” he explained.

The degree to which such a plan is now in operation is unclear. What is undeniable is that the Bush administration is waging an economic offensive against Iran in order to undermine its economy and to weaken the government as the US prepares for military aggression. The broader objectives of the economic and military strategy are identical: to establish US dominance over Iran and its energy reserves as part of its ambition for American hegemony throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/iran-f12.shtml

Bush Administration Concocts
A “Dossier” For War Against Iran
By Peter Symonds

The Bush administration stepped up its propaganda war against Iran with a press briefing in Baghdad on Sunday, setting out claims that the Iranian regime is supplying arms to anti-US militias in Iraq. While the “dossier” fails to prove a case against Tehran, its release demonstrates that the White House is intent on manufacturing a justification for a military confrontation with Iran.

The obvious parallel is with the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction that were concocted as the pretext for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. The timing of the press briefing points to its real purpose. Even though the US has, for more than a year, accused Iran of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraqi groups, it is only now, amid an American military buildup in the Persian Gulf, that the so-called evidence has been released.

The threadbare character of the “dossier” has itself been the subject of debate within the Bush administration. Its release was delayed twice because, as National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley bluntly explained, “we thought the briefing overstated”. State Department and intelligence officials privately told the media that the evidence was “inconclusive”. In the end, the press conference in Baghdad was given, not by US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad as previously announced, but by three American military officials, who insisted on remaining unnamed.

On display to the select audience of reporters were an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with serial numbers, which the officials claimed linked the weapons to Iranian factories. Emphasis was placed on a type of roadside bomb known as an explosively formed penetrator (EFP) capable of punching through most armour, including that of an Abrams tank. According to the presenters, the weapon has been responsible for the deaths of more than 170 US troops since June 2004.

Accusations

No proof, however, was provided that the Iranian regime was directly involved. One of the three officials, described as a senior defence analyst, insisted that the weapons smuggling was organised by a special unit of Iran’s Islamic Republican Guard Corps known as the Quds Force. The involvement of the IRGC-Quds Force, he declared, meant that operations were being directed “from the highest levels of the Iranian government”. Questioned about evidence, he admitted that it was just “an inference”.

The New York Times pointedly noted: “Nonetheless that inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, was bound to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.” In other words, it is widely recognised in US ruling circles that the present accusations against Iran are simply the excuse for an attack on Iran.

Evidence for the involvement of the IRGC-Quds Force in Iraq is also flimsy. The US officials claimed that IRGC-Quds Force members were among the Iranians arrested in separate raids in Baghdad in December and in the northern city of Irbil in January. The only Iranian official named was Mohsin Chizari, whose arrest in Baghdad, along with at least four others, provoked protests not only from Iran, but also from the Iraqi government. Two of those arrested were credentialled diplomats invited by Iraqi President Jalal Talibani to Baghdad for talks.

The arrests highlighted the contradictions of the Bush administration’s policies. In ousting the regime of Saddam Hussein, the US has had to rely on a puppet government in Baghdad dominated by Shiite fundamentalist parties that have longstanding associations with neighbouring Iran. While claiming a UN mandate to protect the Iraqi government, US officials are accusing associated Shiite militias of obtaining assistance from Iran.

Militias

At the press briefing the accusations were directed primarily against “rogue elements” of the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, which is the main target of the “surge” of US troops in Baghdad. US officials also charged, however, that weapons had reached the Badr Brigade connected to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)—one of Washington’s closest allies in Iraq.

Iran has vigorously denied supplying arms to Iraqi militias. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the allegations, saying that his country’s security was dependent on stability in Iraq. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini declared: “Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable.”

In Baghdad, senior Shiite leader Abu Firas al-Saedi pointed out to Time magazine that the US was making accusations against Iran, while remaining silent on the support flowing to Sunni militias from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. “We don’t deny that Iran has an interest in Iraq, and that is a matter of concern,” he said. “But the real question is: ‘Why are the Arab states allowing terrorists to enter Iraq through their borders, and why are they financing them?’”

The explanation lies in the fact that the accusations against Tehran are nothing more than an excuse as the Bush administration prepares for a military attack. Washington remains silent on the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan in Iraq because it has for the past several months been engaged in a sustained diplomatic effort to secure an alliance with these Arab states against alleged “Iranian expansionism”. As well as moving additional warships into the Persian Gulf, the US has been supplying Patriot anti-missile systems to bolster the defence of the Gulf States and their US military bases.

Cheney

It is an open secret in Washington that the Bush administration, or a significant section led by Vice President Dick Cheney, is aggressively pushing for an attack on Iran. On the CBS program “Face the Nation” last Sunday, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd expressed “a degree of skepticism” in the latest allegations against Iran, pointing to the recent Pentagon inspector-general’s report detailing the activities of the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith in manufacturing “intelligence” to justify the Iraq invasion.

Asked directly if the Bush administration was laying the groundwork to attack Iran, Dodd answered: “Well, it could be. There are certainly those who I think are in favor of that. We’ve seen that in the past, that they would like nothing more than to build a case for that. Some of us call this, the year 2007, the year of Iran in a sense, and I’m worried about that. That’s how we got into the mess in Iraq. That’s why some of us supported those resolutions, because of doctored information.

“So I’m very skeptical, based on recent past history, about this administration leading us in that direction. It worries me. It’s not to say I’m not worried about Iran. I am worried about Iran, and there’s steps that could be taken, I think, to try and change the direction they seem to be heading in. But I’m very nervous about what the groundwork being laid here as a premise for military action in Iran.”

There is nothing in Dodd’s remarks to indicate that either he or the Democratic Congress would oppose a war on Iran, any more than they opposed the invasion of Iraq or Bush’s current escalation of the war. The American ruling elite as a whole is determined to establish and maintain US dominance over the Middle East and its huge energy reserves. But there is a distinct nervousness that an attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences and lead to a widening war throughout the region.

Catastropic

In a comment in yesterday’s New York Times entitled “Scary Movie 2,” columnist Paul Krugman warned of the danger of a re-run of the war on Iraq. “Attacking Iran would be a catastrophic mistake, even if all the allegations now being made about Iranian actions are true. But it wouldn’t be the first catastrophic mistake this administration has made, and there are indications that, at the very least, a powerful faction of the administration is spoiling for a fight,” he wrote.

Krugman pointed out that one of the White House’s reasons for focussing on the supply of Iranian arms to Iraq was to avoid the need for Congressional approval. “If you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert that you don’t need authorisation to attack—that Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilise Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing—well, the war would be in full swing,” he commented.

The same pretext could be used to justify an attack on Iran without UN Security Council approval. Senior US military officials in Baghdad emphasised to the media that the press briefing showed their concern for “force protection,” which, they claimed, was already guaranteed under the UN resolution authorising the US occupation of Iraq. By claiming to defend US troops, the Bush administration is seeking to sidestep the objections of US rivals as it prepares another war of aggression.

While the American media has highlighted the alleged threat to US forces posed by Iranian-made weapons, the very last concern of the Bush administration in fabricating its “dossier” is for the lives of American troops in Iraq.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/iran-f13.shtml

War Crimes
Punishing The Perpetrators

I, as a citizen of the world, love peace. I say No to War.

I will help to spread the message that war is a crime against humanity, war kills, those who initiate wars or war mongers are murderers and war is not an option to settle disputes and disagreements.

I will be part of that international machinery to mobilise the second superpower -- the power of public opinion -- to make the world reject war, war mongers and any notions of war.

If, all of us, bloggers do that, we can make it happen.

The three-day Perdana Global Peace Organisation conference and exhibition ended yesterday (Wednesday, February 7) at the Putra World Trade Centre.

Aware that the media in the land of the mighty USA had been biased on the war in Iraq and will continue to be on this, our former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who chaired the conference, called on bloggers to help in mobilising world public opinion against war and war mongers.

"We need the help of bloggers and the internet. Help to tell the truth and to make a case for us," he told the Press conference after the end of the conference.

As reported, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission has been set up to study the complaints by 17 war victims - nine from Iraq, five from the Palestinian territories and three from Lebanon.

The commission will then submit its report to the Kuala Lumpur war crimes tribunal, to be made up of eminent, right-minded international jurists with repute and who have no personal or national interest.

The tribunal will hear charges against war-mongers, leaders and governments of aggressor nations.

The tribunal cannot mete out the suitable punishment to the convicted person simply because it does not have the legal authority to do so.

What it will do is to shame the perpetrators in the annals of history. They will be remembered as war criminals, as murderers of the innocents and as liars.

Obviously, the first to go on trial will be George W. Bush. The rest, I expect, will follow -- Tony Blair, Israel's Ariel Sharon and John Howard.

Frankly, if you ask me, we don't need a tribunal to find Dubya and his lackeys guilty for the crimes committed in the invasion of Iraq and the atrocities that followed. Dubya did it and Blair and Howard, as accessories, are just as guilty.

We know that Dubya ordered his troops to attack Iraq. He said it himself. We all heard him. But, since we have to abide by the rule of international law, the process of justice and fair trial, a tribunal it will have to be.

During the conference, we heard the views of activists and the first hand personal accounts of victims of atrocities ("man in the hood' Ali Shalah and Abu Ghraib survivor Abbas Abid).

The exhibition showed shocking, graphic pictures of the brutality and ugliness of war and aggression. No, they were not pretty. Many people had to turn the other way.

Former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney said that the most important thing about the conference was that it took place.

She said the reality is that the average American does not know the truth about the Iraq War.

The average American cannot comprehend the extent of the suffering of the Iraqi people.
She plans to take the exhibition across the US.

I told her that she might find it hard to do that for several reasons, one of which is that she is a pretty controversial figure in the US.

She was the Democrat congresswoman who accused George W Bush of knowing in advance about the 9/11 attack. Needless to say, she got hell from the mainstream media in the US.

Cynthia was the one who offered Articles of Impeachment against Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

She told me she will go home and is determined more than ever to make a case against Dubya because she says the world cannot wait any longer.

"We do not condone what is done in our name and we are not complicit", she had earlier told the conference.

I tell her, Good luck. We need more of Cynthias in the US and the world.

Earlier, Dr Mahathir asked what we should do after attending the conference and listening to all that was said.

"Do we go home and, sleep?"
No, sir. After knowing that as I am writing now, the US and its allies are, in the words of Hans von Sponeck (former UN Asst. Secretary-General), in an advanced stages of readiness to wage war on Iran using tactical nuclear weapons, which means that the unthinkable will happen for the first time since Hiroshima. no sir, I cannot go home and sleep.

NURAINA A SAMAD
www.nursamad.blogspot.com

War & Peace
Dignity, Justice, Peace & Love

Make love, Not war. And peace, brother.

This is the 21st century and the world is still a dangerous and violent place.

Nothing has quite changed except the level of brutality, the level of suffering and the sophistication of weapons of war.

That is why initiatives like the Perdana Global Peace Organisation conference/Exhibition, "Expose War Crime:Criminalise War" should be supported.

Whatever it takes, as they say, to put an end to war and mass killings.

Today is the last day of the three-day conference at Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur.

We don't know how far the resolutions taken at the conference will go. If they don't go far, it will not be due to a lack of trying, surely.

One strong proposal is to set up a tribunal to try George W. Bush and Tony Blair for war crimes in Iraq.

Today, the delegates will formally launch the tribunal.

Our former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who is the man behind the Kuala Lumpur initiative, had said that while the tribunal will not have the legal authority of any international organization and will not be able to impose penalties, its aim is to condemn the accused in history books.

For example, if the tribunal found Bush guilty, he would not be hanged like Saddam Hussein was hanged. But he should always carry the label 'War Criminal, Killer of Children, Liar.

That's what Dr Mahathir said.

And I'd like to see that happen. I really do.

And I would like to say this again-- a blast from the past, from those Woodstock days -- "Make Love Not War"!

NURAINA A SAMAD
www.nursamad.blogspot.com