Featured Post

Global Terrorism - عالمی دھشتگردی

There is no commonly accepted definition of "terrorism". Being a charged term, with the connotation of something "mo...

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Islamic Extremism is a Product of Western Imperialism

shutterstock_324965885 (2)
It is important that we understand the causes of such extremism. After all, Islamic extremism was virtually unknown fifty years ago and suicide bombings were inconceivable. And yet today it seems that we are confronted with both on a daily basis. 

So what happened to bring Islamic fundamentalism to the forefront of global politics? 

While there are many factors involved, undoubtedly one of the primary causes is Western imperialism. Western intervention in the Middle East over the past century to secure access to the region’s oil reserves established a perfect environment in which Islamic fundamentalists could exploit growing anti-Western sentiment throughout the Islamic world with some establishing violent extremist groups. The most recent consequence of this process is the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, which emerged out of the chaos caused by the US invasion of Iraq.

In order to understand the rise of the Islamic State we must first briefly review the history of Western intervention in not only the Middle East but throughout the world to reveal that Islamic extremism in not a unique phenomenon. For the past 500 years, peoples throughout the world have resorted to acts of violence that today would be classified as terrorism in efforts to resist Western imperialism. Indigenous peoples in the Americas often used violent tactics to defend themselves against the brutal European colonizers. There were also many violent slave revolts by Blacks who had been shipped from Africa to the Americas in the service of Western imperialism.

In Southeast Asia, the Filipino people first violently resisted the Spanish and then rose up again when the United States became the new colonial ruler of the Philippines in 1898. Apparently, Washington’s newest colonial subjects didn’t appreciate President William McKinley’s concern for their well-being when he arrogantly declared that since Filipinos “were unfit for self-government, … there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them.” Meanwhile, in South Africa, the Zulu people were resorting to violence in an effort to resist British attempts to “civilize” them in the late 1800s. Back then, those who violently resisted Western imperialism weren’t labelled “terrorists,” we just called them “savages.” These are just a few examples of the countless attempts throughout the global South to resist the violent and often brutal expansion of Western imperialism, which included not only the imposition of Western values and culture on people, but also Christianity.

One of the reasons that Islamic extremism has only come to the fore in recent decades is the fact that Western imperialism in the Middle East is a relatively recent occurrence. Western imperialism didn’t begin to make serious headway in the Middle East until the early 20th century. Consequently, we haven’t yet succeeded in our quest to violently subjugate the peoples of that region to the degree that we have peoples throughout most of the rest of the world. In american leech some Middle Eastern nations, Western imperialism initially took the form of traditional colonialism, which involved direct rule. In other countries, it has constituted a neo-colonial approach utilizing international institutions such as the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as well as direct US and European intervention in the forms of military coups and outright war.

While European nations, particularly Britain, had made some inroads into the Middle East in the late 1800s, it was the discovery of oil in Iran in 1908 that marked the arrival of Western imperialism. The London-based Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) gained the rights to Iran’s oil and, because its major shareholder was the British government, Britain effectively controlled Iran’s oil sector. During the ensuing decades there were major protests by the Iranian people who were unhappy with foreign ownership of the country’s oil and the fact that Iran was receiving only 16 percent of its own oil wealth. In 1950, the Iranian parliament finally responded to popular demands and voted to nationalize the country’s oil sector. The following year, Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh established the National Iranian Oil Company.

Unhappy with Iran’s decision to claim ownership of its own oil resources and to use them for the benefit of the Iranian people, the United States and Britain orchestrated a coup to oust the moderate, secular and democratically-elected Mosaddegh government. Shah Reza Pahlavi was installed in power and the new pro-Western dictator immediately re-opened the door for Western companies to return to Iran. And to ensure that the Shah maintained iron-clad control over the population, the United States provided him with military aid as well as training for his secret police force, which would brutalize the Iranian people for the next 26 years.

Under the Shah, Western oil workers flooded into Iran and the country’s capital Tehran became a decadent playground for high-paid foreign oil workers who engaged openly in un-Islamic activities including alcohol consumption, casino gambling and prostitution. And while the country’s oil wealth was flowing into the pockets of foreigners and the Shah and his cronies, most Iranians were struggling to survive in poverty. Not surprisingly, Islamic fundamentalists began pointing to Western imperialism and Western decadence as an affront both to Islam and to the Iranian people. It was a narrative that began to resonate with many impoverished Iranians who had traditionally been moderates. In 1979, under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a popular revolution overthrew the Shah’s repressive regime and established an Islamic state.

Reflecting on the US role in Iran, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated, “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

The first significant success for Islamic fundamentalism directly resulted from the United States and Britain overthrowing a democratically-elected and secular government and their subsequent support for a brutal dictatorship, all in the name of securing access to oil. Today, we are not only still dealing with the consequences of this Western imperialism in our relations with Iran, but also with Iran’s support for other fundamentalist groups in the region such as Hezbollah.

The same year that Iran became an Islamic state, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to defend that country’s unpopular Soviet-backed regime from a growing insurgency. The mujahideen rebels, like the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran, were fighting against a Western-backed dictatorship. This time it was the atheist communists of the Soviet Union that were the imperialists. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan only boosted the strength of the mujahideen as recruits flocked from throughout the Islamic world to help liberate the country from the foreign infidels. Many of the tens of thousands of recruits came from Saudi Arabia, which contributed to the fundamentalist movement known as Wahhabism expanding from being a fringe sect of Islam that primarily existed in Saudi Arabia to a major religious force throughout the Sunni Islamic world.

The United States viewed the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan through a Cold War lens and began providing weapons and training to the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen rebels. During the 1980s, Washington supplied the mujahideen with $4 billion in arms that significantly strengthened the fundamentalists and President Ronald Reagan publicly referred to them as “freedom fighters.” One of the mujihadeen beneficiaries of US aid was a Saudi named Osama bin Laden. The primary objective of the war for this particular “freedom fighter” was the removal of a Western military from Islamic lands. The mujahideen succeeded in their holy war in 1989 when the Soviet Union withdrew its forces. And then, in 1996, following a civil war between various factions of the mujahideen, the recently-formed Taliban emerged victorious and established a fundamentalist government.

As a 1993 article in the British daily Independent made clear, Osama bin Laden was viewed by the West as a warrior, not a terrorist, for his role in the mujahideen. The article, titled “Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace,” described bin Laden’s work building roads in the impoverished nation of Sudan in the early 1990s. But bin Laden was not only building roads, he was also establishing a new organization with his mujahideen fighters that would eventually be called al-Qaeda. The mission of al-Qaeda essentially remained the same as that of the mujahideen in Afghanistan: to drive Western military forces out of Islamic lands. This time the target was US troops based in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait following the first Gulf War. Consequently, bin Laden went from being a “freedom fighter” to a “terrorist” virtually overnight even though his mission hadn’t changed, only the target.

From the perspective of Washington, bin Laden was a “freedom fighter” when he was fighting against the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan but was a “terrorist” when he fought against the presence of US military forces in the Islamic world. From the perspective of bin Laden and his Islamic extremist followers, however, nothing had really changed. Whether it was Soviet soldiers or US troops, both constituted Western military forces that had to be removed from Islamic soil.

Ultimately, Western intervention in the Islamic world gave birth to al-Qaeda. First, Soviet military support for a puppet regime in Afghanistan, then US backing of the Islamic fundamentalists who constituted the mujahideen rebels, and, finally, the establishment of US military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the first Gulf War. As a consequence of these imperialist actions, Islamic extremists in the form of the Taliban and al-Qaeda emerged as powerful forces with the latter feeding off the growing disenchantment among Muslims angry at Western militarism in the Islamic world, Western backing for corrupt governments in the Middle East, and US support for Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.

Following al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks against New York City and Washington, DC on September 11, 2001, the United States launched its war on terror and targeted the Islamic extremist group in Afghanistan. However, the Bush administration also sought to exploit the 9/11 attacks to justify ousting Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Top Bush administration officials launched a massive propaganda and misinformation campaign to convince the American people that Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks and linked to al-Qaeda, both of which were untrue. They also portrayed Hussein as a terrorist threat because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, which was another lie.

As the reports by UN weapons inspectors had made clear, Iraq no longer possessed any chemical or biological weapons; they had been destroyed in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions following the first Gulf War in 1991. Furthermore, the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign conveniently ignored the fact that the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had possessed and used during the 1980s were supplied to it by the United States when Hussein was an ally against the fundamentalist regime that had come to power in Iran.

In March 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the US military to invade Iraq without authorization from the UN Security Council and in direct violation of international law. Four days before the invasion, Vice-President Dick Cheney declared, “From the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” But one year later an extensive nationwide poll in Iraq showed that 71 percent of Iraqis saw the US troops as “occupiers” rather than “liberators.” Such a response should not have been surprising given that some 100,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion and occupation.

The military occupation gave rise to an insurgency that sought to oust the foreign occupying troops. Prior to the US invasion there had been no Islamic extremist groups operating in the country. But the emergence of the broad-based insurgency and the post-invasion chaos opened the door for al-Qaeda to enter Iraq. And it was out of both the insurgency and al-Qaeda that the fundamentalist Islamic State (originally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) emerged in 2006.

Following the invasion, the United States dismantled Saddam Hussein’s military and many of the unemployed former officers ended up joining the insurgency. Some of these military officers conspired with a breakaway faction of al-Qaeda in Iraq to form the Islamic State. The new extremist group sought to establish an Islamic caliphate in northern Iraq and Syria. The Syrian civil war in 2011 allowed the Islamic State to cross into Syria where it grew dramatically stronger and began to consolidate control over territory. It then re-focused its efforts on Iraq and easily defeated the new US-trained Iraqi army and consolidated its control over northern parts of that country in 2014. Meanwhile, the West’s military intervention in Libya in 2011 helped turn that country into a failed state and opened the door for the Islamic State to establish a foothold in that part of North Africa.

The Islamic State has had significant success recruiting disenchanted Muslims from around the world to join its ranks and to carry out terrorist attacks in Western nations such as France and Belgium. Last year, even former British Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged “there are elements of truth” in claims that the invasion of Iraq led to the creation of the Islamic State. As Blair admitted, “Of course, you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015.”

Once again, Western imperialist actions in the Middle East had given rise to Islamic extremism. But the rise of the Islamic State should not have come as a surprise to anyone. That the Bush administration’s illegal invasion of Iraq laid the foundation for the emergence of the Islamic State was entirely predictable. After all, the West’s ouster of the moderate and secular Mosaddegh and its backing of the Shah’s ruthless regime in Iran had given birth to that country’s Islamic fundamentalist revolution. And Washington’s military support of fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan and its establishment of military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ensured the emergence of al-Qaeda.

Meanwhile, Western imperialism in other parts of the Middle East over the past century has also contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. While most of the Arab states in the region gained independence following World War Two, the United States and Britain essentially handed over most of Palestine to European Jews so they could create the Jewish state of Israel. And, ever since, Israel has received unconditional US support to brutally repress the Palestinian people and to repeatedly violate international law, which has generated widespread anti-Western sentiment throughout the Middle East. It wasn’t until after almost 40 years of Israeli rule over Palestinian lands that Islamic fundamentalism and the tactic of suicide bombing finally made inroads among the traditionally moderate Palestinian population. This occurred when Hamas was formed in the Occupied Territories in the mid-1980s. Similarly, it was Israel’s US-supported invasion of Lebanon that gave birth to the fundamentalist group Hezbollah during the same decade.

Over the past one hundred years, the Middle East has been targeted by Western imperialism in the violent manner that the rest of the world has endured for centuries. Nowadays we use politically correct terms such as “democracy promotion” and “human rights” instead of “civilize” and “Christianize,” but they essentially mean the same thing because they are simply the latest justifications for stealing resources and imposing Western values on other cultures. Not surprisingly, as has been the case throughout the rest of the world over the past 500 years, there is widespread resentment and anger towards the West for its imperialist policies in the Middle East. And, also not surprisingly, some fundamentalist Muslim resisters to Western imperialism have resorted to extreme tactics.

Finally, perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of Western imperialism in the Islamic world is the fact that each consequence has been more extreme than the previous one. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were far more extremist than the Islamic government that came to power in Iran. And the Islamic State is even more extremist than al-Qaeda. Which begs the question: What new and even more extremist monstrosity are we currently creating with our ongoing military interventions and imperialist policies in the Islamic world?

By Garry Leech, an independent journalist and author of numerous books including How I Became an American Socialist (Misfit Books, 2016), Capitalism: A Structural Genocide (Zed Books, 2012); Beyond Bogota: Diary of a Drug War Journalist in Colombia (Beacon Press, 2009); and Crude Interventions: The United States Oil and the New World Disorder (Zed Books, 2006). ). He also teaches international politics at Cape Breton University in Nova Scotia, Canada and Javeriana University in Cali, Colombia. For more information about Garry’s work, visit garryleech.com

Related :

Jihad, Extremism.... [........]

    Uri Avnery: Israeli journalist whose voice of dissent was radical until the end

    One of the first advocates of a two-state solution in Israel, he was shunned by the establishment whose unreason he was never afraid to call out. Avnery was a dominant and divisive figure in Israel, where he called for secularism in the country’s politics, negotiations with the Islamist group Hamas, recognition of the right of Palestinians to establish their own state and shared control of Jerusalem.

    Once dubbed “Government Enemy No 1” by the chief of Israel’s internal security service, he spent four decades as editor in chief of the news magazine Haolam Hazeh (This World), a now-defunct weekly that published exposés of government corruption alongside left-wing political columns and, on its back cover, photos of scantily clad women. Keep reading [.......]

    Related :

      Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom from India ‘overwhelmingly homegrown’: The New York Times

      The Kashmiri people’s struggle for freedom from India’s rule is “overwhelmingly homegrown”, The New York Times said in an in-depth dispatch from Indian occupied Kashmir where the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) anti-Muslim policies have “spurred more people to turn against the government.”

      “The conflict today is probably driven less by geopolitics than by internal Indian politics, which have increasingly taken an anti-Muslim direction,” Times’ Correspondent Jeffrey Gettleman wrote from Qasbayar, a Kashmiri village.

      The report said that most of the fighters are young men who draw support from a population “deeply resentful of India’s governing party and years of occupation.”

      “Kashmir sits on the frontier of India and Pakistan, and both countries have spilt rivers of blood over it, correspondent Gettleman wrote.

      “Three times, they have gone to war, and tens of thousands of people have been killed in the conflict. It is one of Asia’s most dangerous flash points, where a million troops have squared off along the disputed border. Both sides now wield nuclear arms. And the two sides are divided by religion, with Kashmir stuck in the middle,” he said. [Keep reading ........]

      Related :

      Kashmir freedom struggle >>>>>

        Myanmar's military accused of genocide in damning UN report

        Myanmar's military accused of genocide in damning UN report: Mission concludes army has carried out ‘gravest crimes’ against Rohingya in Rakhine and minorities elsewhere.... 

        Myanmar’s military has been accused of genocide against the Rohingya in Rakhine state in a damning UN report that alleged the army was responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity against minorities across the country.

        The UN report said it found conclusive evidence that the actions of the country’s armed forces, known as the Tatmadaw, “undoubtedly amounted to the gravest crimes under international law” in Rakhine as well as in Kachin and Shan, states also riven by internal conflicts. [Read full story by The Guardian ..... ]

        Related :

        Jihad, Extremism

          افغانستان میں امن کی کوششیں? Is Peace in Afghanistan possible

          DESPITE some deadly terrorism attacks reported in 2018, the overall frequency across the globe has been on the decline in recent years. However, these dwindling numbers do not suggest, in any way, that the threat of terrorism has been eliminated. The latest audio message by the so called Islamic State group (IS) head Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, in which he called on his followers to keep fighting, vindicates the lingering threat of terrorist violence.

          Certainly, most terrorist groups have been weakened but they are still present in physical and virtual spaces; in many instances, they have ungoverned territories to operate in. In Pakistan, too, despite justifiable claims of having significantly damaged terrorist infrastructure in the country, terrorist groups are able to trigger sporadic waves of violence albeit with a reduced frequency as compared to past years. A series of terrorist attacks before and during the election month of July hurt the image of Pakistan as a state effectively dealing with its internal security threats.... [........]

          افغانستان میں بیک وقت طالبان کی امریکی افواج اور افغان حکام کے ساتھ جھڑپیں ، امریکی ڈرون حملے اور ان پہ پینٹاگون کی خاموشی بھی جاری ہے اور ساتھ ہی کئی ڈپلومیسی ٹریک بھی عمل پذیر ہیں۔ستمبر میں ہونے والی ماسکو امن کانفرنس میں طالبان کے ساتھ مذاکرات متوقع ہیں جن میں شرکت سے تاحال امریکہ اور افغان حکومت نے معذرت ظاہر کردی ہے۔ 

          افغانستان میں اصل فریق تو طالبان اور امریکہ ہیں ۔کسی ایک فریق کے بغیر آپ بارہ ممالک کا اجلاس بلا کر گڑ والی چائے تو پی سکتے ہیں مسئلے کا حل نہیں نکال سکتے۔معلوم ہوتا ہے مسئلے کا حل نکالنا مقصود بھی نہیں ہے۔ ورنہ مذاکرات کے لئے ماسکو کا انتخاب کرکے امریکہ کو مشتعل نہ کیا جاتا۔ اس طرح چین اور روس نے جن کے درمیان کم سے کم افغانستان کی حد تک گاڑھی چھن رہی ہے ، امریکہ اور افغان حکومت دونوں کو پیغا م دیا ہے کہ وہ اس مسئلے کے مستقل شراکت دار ہیں اور ان کے بغیر مسئلہ حل نہیں ہوسکتا۔ طالبان پہ پہلے ہی الزام ہے کہ انہیں چین اور روس اسلحہ فراہم کررہے ہیں۔ یہ الزام کسی حد تک درست بھی ہے۔

          افغانستان کے سیکوریٹی ایڈوائزر حنیف اتمر استعفی دے چکے ہیں ۔ کہا جاتا ہے کہ حنیف اتمر روس اور چین کی اس حرکت پہ مشتعل ہوئے ہیں حالانکہ ان پہ روس کے ساتھ قربت کا الزام بھی لگایا جاتا رہا ہے۔حنیف اتمر آئندہ سال صدارتی انتخابات میں امیدوار ہونگے لیکن اس کے لئے ابھی استعفیٰ دینا ضروری نہیں تھا۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ وہ امریکہ کے ساتھ بیک ڈور ڈپلومیسی میں مصروف رہے ہیں۔ گزشتہ سال ان کا دورہ روس بھی مبینہ طور پہ امریکی ایما پہ تھا اور وہ یہ پیغام لے کر گئے تھے کہ روس طالبان کے سر پہ سے ہاتھ اٹھالے۔انہوں نے حال ہی میں پرانے مجاہدین کی وطن واپس آنے والی جلا وطن قیادت سے ملاقاتیں بھی کیں جن میں آنے والے انتخابات میں ان جماعتوں کے مستقبل کا جائزہ لیا گیا تھا۔کل کے مجاہدین آج امریکہ کے زیر انتظام ہونے والے انتخابات کی تیاری میں ہیں اور طالبان ہیں کہ ہاتھ سے بندوق رکھنے پہ تیار نہیں۔ اس کے علاوہ یہی موصوف ملک کے ہر بڑے دن پہ امریکہ کا دامن پکڑ کر اسے کچھ اور دن افغانستان میں قیام کرنے کا عاشقانہ مطالبہ کرتے پائے گئے ہیں۔اب عین اس موقع پہ جبکہ روس نے چین ، پاکستان اور بھارت سمیت بارہ ممالک کو طالبان کے ساتھ مذاکرات کے لئے ماسکو بلا لیا ہے، حنیف اتمر کا استعفی کچھ اور کہانی بیان کررہا ہے۔

          ظاہر ہے وہ امریکہ کے ساتھ ہی مشتعل ہوگئے ہیں اور ملک میں چین اور روس کے کردار کو اہمیت دینے کے لئے تیار نہیں ہیں۔ادھر چین و روس نے امریکی انکار کو اپنے حق میں استعمال کیا اور کہا کہ وہ خطے میں امن چاہتا ہی نہیں ہے۔ حقیقت تو یہ ہے کہ وہ امن چاہتا ہے لیکن اپنی شرائط پہ چاہتا ہے اور جو طالبان نہیں چاہتے۔ شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم میں بھارت اور پاکستان کی شمولیت کے ساتھ ہی چین نے افغان پالیسی کا اعلان کر دیا تھا جس میں روس نے اس کی حمایت کی تھی۔ تب ہی فیصلہ ہوگیا تھا کہ اب امریکہ کو افغانستان سے نکلنے پہ مجبور کیا جائے گا لیکن کیا انہیں علم نہیں تھا کہ ایسا مطالبہ اگر چین اور روس کی طرف سے ہوگا تو وہ امریکہ کو مزید مشتعل ہی کرے گا اورہوا بھی یہی ہے اور مقصد بھی یہی تھا۔ چین اور روس امریکہ کو اس وقت تک افغانستان میں پھنسائے رکھنا چاہتے ہیں جب تک طالبان کا صفایا نہیں ہوجاتا یا وہ جنگ بندی کے کسی معاہدے پہ راضی نہیں ہوجاتے۔امریکہ نکل گیا تو اژدہوں کے اس ہار کو گلے میں کون ڈالے گا۔امریکہ کا طالبان سے مطالبہ چھوٹا سا ہے اور وہ ہے افغانستان میں مستقل عسکری اڈوں کی موجودگی۔ جس دن طالبان اس پہ راضی ہوگئے سارے مسئلے حل ہوجائیں گے۔آخر فلپائن ، کوریائی جزائر ، جاپان، افریقہ، شرق وسطی، خلیج ، آسٹریلیا اور کونسا بحر وبر ہے جہاں امریکی فوجی اڈے موجود نہیں خود افغانستان میں اس وقت بگرام ، ہیرات، مزارشریف، شنداد میں ائیربیس اور کم از کم سات مزید عسکری مستقر موجود ہیں۔کیا حرج ہے اگر طالبان اسے ان میں سے کچھ اڈوں کی حفاظت کی ضمانت دے دیں تاکہ چین اور روس کی موجودگی میں اس کی دال روٹی بھی چلتی رہے۔تب تک کیوں نا مذاکرات مذاکرات کھیلا جائے آخر امریکہ کلنٹن سے لے کر ٹرمپ تک یہی تو کرتا آرہا ہے ۔اب تک کم سے کم تیس بار امریکی انتظامیہ اور طالبان کے درمیان براہ راست مذاکرات ہوچکے ہیں۔

          کلنٹن نے تو طالبان کے ساتھ براہ راست مذاکرات کئے تھے اور ان سے افغانستان میں القاعدہ کے خلاف کارروائی کرنے کا مطالبہ کیا تھا۔ جواباً القاعدہ نے کینیا اور تنزانیہ میںا مریکی سفارت خانوں پہ حملہ کردیا تھا اور حملہ آور افغانستان سے نہیں کہیں اور سے گئے تھے۔نائن الیون کے بعد بش پالیسی نے تو دنیا بدل دی تھی اوباما نے چارج سنبھالتے ہی حقیقی امن کا ضامن افغانستان سے تمام غیر ملکی افواج کے انخلا کو قرار دیا لیکن امریکی فوجیوں کی تعداد تین گنا بڑھا دی۔اپنے دور صدارت کے آخری دنوں میں انہوں نے یہ تعداد کم کی لیکن صدر ٹرمپ نے فیصلہ کن جنگ کی ٹھان لی۔ مسئلہ لیکن وہ ہے ہی نہیں جو بتایا جاتا ہے اور جس کی بنیاد پہ پاکستان کی مشکیں کسی اور امداد میں کٹوتی کی جاتی ہے یعنی دہشت گردوں کا صفایا۔اصل مسئلہ ہے طالبان کو افغانستان میں امریکی موجودگی پہ راضی کرنا جس کے لیے پاکستان پہ دباؤ ڈالا جاتا ہے۔اب اگر ماسکو میں شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم کے تمام ممالک مل کر طالبان سے امریکہ کی غیر موجودگی میں مذاکرات کر بھی لیتے ہیں تو ان کی حیثیت کیا ہوگی اس کا انداز ہ لگانا مشکل نہیں ہے۔اس کا اندازہ روس کو بھی ہے اور وہ جو پیغام دینا چاہتا ہے اس نے دے دیا ہے۔ طالبان امریکی افواج کی موجودگی میں افغانستان کے تقریبا ًنصف حصے پہ قابض ہوکر اور پینتیس فیصد اضلاع میں اپنی متوازی حکومت بنا کر روس اور چین کی گائڈلائن پہ چلنا چاہیں گے، یہ بعید از قیاس ہے۔انہوں نے حالات کے مطابق وہی پالیسی اپنائی جو کبھی سوویت روس کے خلاف ان کے بڑوں نے اپنائی تھی ۔جس وقت افغانستان میں روسی افواج پسپا ہو رہی تھیں ، پاکستان میں موجود سوویت روس کے جاں نثار ، افغان مجاہدین پہ امریکی پٹھو ہونے کاالزام لگاتے اور پاکستان میں موجود افغان مہاجرین کے خلاف نفرت انگیز نعرے لگاتے تھے۔ سوویت روس کو پسپا ہونا ہی پڑا۔اس جہاد میں امریکی اور امریکی ڈالر کب اور کس مقام پہ شامل ہوئے یہ کوئی راز کی بات نہیں۔خود امریکہ میں ایسے بے شمار گواہ اپنی تصنیفات ساتھ موجود ہیں جنہوں نے اعتراف کیا کہ یہ جنگ تو دراصل مٹھی بھر مجاہدین نے چند توڑے دار بندوقوں اور روس سے لوٹے گئے ان ٹینکوں کے ساتھ شروع کی تھی جنہیں گھات لگائے مجاہدین چکنی مٹی میں لپے کمبل پھینک کر ناکارہ بنا دیا کرتے تھے ۔ 
          یہ کہانیاں نہیں تھیں نہ ہی نسیم حجازی کے کسی ناول کے اقتباسات تھے۔ یہ تاریخی حقائق ہیں جن سے صرف نظر وہی کر سکتا ہے جس کا کوئی نظریہ نہ ہو۔ مارکس اور لینن کے پیرووکاروں کو جو بالشویک انقلاب کی مثالیں دیتے نہیں تھکتے،بولیویا کے چی گویرا اور کیوبا کے فیدل کاسترو کو ہیرو مانتے ہیں اور انقلاب فرانس کی عوامیت پہ لمبے لیکچر دیتے ہیں معلوم نہیں کیوں افغان عوام اور مجاہدین کی جدو جہد آزادی کو امریکی جہاد کا نام دے کر رد کر دیتے ہیں۔ اس جہاد میں جو خالص افغان عوام اور مجاہدین نے سویت روس کے خلاف شروع کیا اور جس میں بعد میں سعودی عرب ، پاکستان اور امریکہ نے اپنا حصہ ڈالا کہ ہر ایک کے اپنے مفادات تھے، امریکی جہاد کہناایک نظریے کی توہین ہی نہیں حقائق سے سنگین صرف نظر بھی ہے ۔

          پاکستان کی خوش قسمتی یہ رہی کہ اس جنگ کے دوران اس کی پوزیشن مذہبی اعتبار سے مضبوط اور واضح رہی۔ ایک طرف جارح سویت روس تھا جو ایک عرصہ افغانستان میں اپنے نظریات کی آبیاری کرتا رہا تھا دوسری طرف وہ مجاہدین تھے جو اس جارح کافر ملک کے خلاف ہتھیار اٹھا کر صف آرا ہوگئے تھے۔ پاکستان کا جغرافیہ اور اخلاقیات دونوں پابند تھے کہ وہ مجاہدین کی دامے درمے سخنے مدد کریں۔ ادھر امریکہ کو روس کے ساتھ پرانے بدلے چکانے تھے یوں پاکستان کی پانچوں گھی میں اور سر کڑاہی میں رہا۔ مجاہدین،پاکستان اور امریکہ ایک ہی پیج پہ اپنا اپنا کھیل کھیلتے رہے۔کل کے مجاہدین تو آج بھی امریکی آشیرباد میں ہونے والے انتخابات کی تیاری میں مصروف ہیں اور آج کے طالبان نے ہتھیار اٹھا رکھے ہیں جن پہ الزام ہے کہ ان کی پشت پناہی روس اور چین کررہے ہیں۔ ۔ یہ الزام لگانے والے یہ بھی بھول جاتے ہیں کہ اب روس سپرپاور نہیں رہا پھر بھی امریکہ کو افغانستان سے نکلنے کا راستہ نہیںمل رہا۔وہ یہ ماننے کو تیار نہیں کہ مومن اللہ پہ بھروسہ کرلے تو وہ کسی کو بھی اس کا پشت پناہ بنا دیتا ہے۔ [قدسیہ ممتاز 92 نیوز]

          Afghanistan | World | The Guardian

          2 days ago - Afghanistan: national security adviser quits, sparking cabinet resignations. Hanif Atmar's exit, amid worsening security situation, is followed by ...

          Afghanistan - The New York Times

          World news about Afghanistan. Breaking news and archival information about its people, politics and economy from The New York Times.
          Related :

          Jihad, Extremism

            Monday, August 27, 2018

            Global Terrorism - عالمی دھشتگردی

            There is no commonly accepted definition of "terrorism". Being a charged term, with the connotation of something "morally wrong", it is often used, both by governments and non-state groups, to abuse or denounce opposing groups. Broad categories of political organisations have been claimed to have been involved in terrorism to further their objectives, including right-wing and left-wing political organisations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments. Terrorism-related legislation has been adopted in various states, regarding "terrorism" as a crime. There is no universal agreement as to whether or not "terrorism", in some definition, should be regarded as a war crime.

            The present wave of terrorism can  be traced form destruction of King David Hotel in Palestine by Zionist terrorists. The King David Hotel bombing was a terrorist attack carried out on Monday, July 22, 1946, by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed, and 46 were injured. [........]. The Palestine was colonised and they started freedom struggle only to be termed terrorists? Similarly the Kashmiri resistance under Indian occupation, Afghans by Russia and now US are called terrorists. The state terrorism by the occupation forces is ignored.

            How Zionist terrorism determined Palestine's fate | The Electronic ...


            Mar 15, 2017 - Zionist terrorism aimed to prevent Palestinian Arabs from exercising ... attacks, which escalated following the end of the Second World War, ...

            Irgun - Wikipedia


            The Irgun was a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in Mandate Palestine between ... The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. ... The Irgun disagreed with the policy of the Yishuv and with the World Zionist Organization, both with regard to strategy and ...
            The present wave of terror, dire threat to world peace can be traced to the Zionism and the US imperialism, with the defeat of USSR in Afghanistan through Taliban,[CIA creation] who were abandoned, which resulted in creation of various groups for establishment of Islamic Caliphate in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Middle East [Al-Qaida,ISIS/Daesh, BOKO Haram in Nigeria and elsewhere]. These so called groups help to destroy Iraq and Syria, Libya and thus Israel emerging as sole regional power with no threat.  Millions of people [majority Muslims lost their lives]
            Statistics: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism

            A search of terrorist organizations will give a list of Muslim Terrorist Organizations, whereas there are Christian, Zionist, Hindu, Buddhist and others terrorist organizations in large numbers not mentioned. Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly!

            Read: Islamic Extremism is a Product of Western Imperialism

            The Zionist movement has maintained a striking continuity in its aims and methods over the past century. From the start, the movement sought to achieve a Jewish majority in Palestine and to establish a Jewish state on as much of the LAND as possible. The methods included promoting both mass Jewish immigration and acquiring tracts of land that would become the inalienable property of the Jewish people. This policy inevitably prevented the indigenous Arab residents from attaining their national goals and establishing a Palestinian state. It also necessitated displacing Palestinians from their lands and jobs when their presence conflicted with Zionist interests.Keep reading [.....]

            Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants. The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century but gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–89) after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and again after the 2001 September 11 attacks and the 2002 Bali bombings.

            According to the Global Terrorism Database by the University of Maryland, College Park, more than 61,000 incidents of non-state terrorism, resulting in at least 140,000 deaths, have been recorded from 2000 to 2014. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism]

            In the present environment of universal turmoil especially in the post 911 scenario, the Muslims have become a target of universal hate propaganda. Some verses from Qur’an are mostly misquoted to defend killing of non believers and to project a permanent state of armed conflict (Jihad) between Muslims and non believers. The ignorant terrorists thus facilitate the anti Muslim lobbies to propagate and project all Muslims as intolerant, war mongers and terrorists. Even some ignorant Muslims also fall pray to this fallacy. It is important that the misconceptions are removed by understanding the concept of Jihad in the light of Qur’an and Sunnah. ... Keep reading ... [........]

            Indian Muslims are the 3rd largest Muslim population anywhere in the world, after Indonesia and Pakistan. Muslims in India form the largest religious minority in the country. According to the 2011 Census, they comprise 14.4 per cent of India’s total population — roughly 174 million people. . In that sense, then, Indian Muslims certainly are a minority, particularly when one considers the growing influence of Hindu right-wing forces since the 1980s. They are constant target of Hindu Extremists and terrorists .... Keep reading ...[.......]

            Kashmir, a Muslim majority state is illegally occupied by India since partition in 1947. They were promised a plebiscite under UN in 1948 but India has denied them this right... they are struggling for freedom and Indian military is committing atrocities against population, the state terrorism .... keep reading .... [........] 

            Global Terrorism Database - START.umd.edu - University of Maryland


            The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) is an open-source database including information on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2017 (with ...

            National Narrative Against Terrorism دہشت گردی کے خلاف قومی بیانیہ تاریخی فتویٰ ’’پیغام پاکستان‘‘ .......

            Related :

            Jihad, Extremism.... [........]

            Buddhist Terrorism

              The Terror Organizations list include mostly Muslims , whereas there are many Terrorist groups among Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and others...

              Terrorism can be eliminated by resolving the major world issues like Palestine, Kashmir and others with justice, granting human rights and freedom to the people in Afghanistan, Myanmar (Rohingya) Syria, Yemen etc and stop colonization, exploitation in any shape or form ... 

              Sunday, August 12, 2018

              The security policy challenge

              To counter terrorism, the PTI promises a four-fold strategy comprising the four ‘E’s’: the first component is ‘exposing’ the links between active and passive terrorists and winning over the latter; the second component is about ‘enforcing’ the National Action Plan (NAP) as well as Pakistan’s international treaty/convention commitments on counterterrorism; the third seeks to ‘eliminate’ hardcore terrorists; and the fourth calls for ‘educating’ people by developing a counter-ideological narrative on terrorism۔۔۔۔keep reading