Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'

An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope's visit.

Antonio Federici's advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line "immaculately conceived".

The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs.

Antonio Federici says it will now put up new posters near Westminster Abbey.
Pope Benedict XVI will visit Westminster Abbey on Friday, before holding Mass at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday.

Antonio Federici, a UK-based company, has yet to reveal what image will be portrayed in the new advert, saying only that it would be "a continuation of the theme".
A spokeswoman for the company said the new image intended to "defy" the ban from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

She added: "We are in the process of securing a series of billboards close to and along the planned route of the Pope's cavalcade around Westminster Cathedral".
A spokesman for the ASA said its rulings "must be followed and we are taking steps to ensure Antonio Federici do so".

He added: "We do not comment on the likely compliance of ads that have not yet appeared.
"However, we are continuing to conduct work behind the scenes, including with the advertiser, to ensure they comply with the rules."

Defending the banned nun advert, Antonio Federici said the idea of "conception" represented the development of their ice cream.

It added that the use of religious imagery represented its strong feeling towards its product.
The firm said it also wished to "comment on and question, using satire and gentle humour, the relevance and hypocrisy of religion and the attitudes of the church to social issues".
The banned advert was featured in editions of The Lady and Grazia magazines.

The ASA said in its ruling: "We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.
"We concluded that to use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith."
The publishers of The Lady said it had received eight complaints and that it had been a "misjudgement" to have published .

The ASA banned another advert for Antonio Federici in July 2009 that showed a priest and a nun appearing as if they were about to kiss.

A BBC report Here

Obama, FDI, Manmohan Singh and lies

For U.S. President Barack Obama there could be nothing more cheering. The ‘underachiever’ now goes to the presidential polls with a lot of confidence — India’s decision to open up FDI in multi-brand retail comes as a shot in the arm for the beleaguered American economy and will obviously boost his poll prospects. 

Mr. Obama certainly knows what is good for the U.S. economy; Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also knows what is in America’s interest. Mr. Obama, for instance, wanted to stop outsourcing to protect U.S. jobs. No amount of persuasion from India changed his mind. Similarly, knowing how important FDI in retail is for him, he had pitched for a new wave of economic reforms. It was surprising to see Mr. Obama telling India what is good for us.

Aided and abetted by TIME magazine and credit rating agencies like Standard&Poor’s, Fitch and Moody’s, India finally buckled under global pressure. What is little known is that India was also under a G-20 obligation to remove all hurdles to the growth of multi-brand retail.

But is FDI in retail really good for India? Will it improve rural infrastructure, reduce wastage of agricultural produce, and enable farmers to get a better price for their crops? While a lot has been said and written about the virtues of big retail, let me make an attempt to answer some of the big claims. 

Agriculture: The Prime Minister has repeatedly projected FDI in retail as a boon for agriculture. Unfortunately, this is not true. Even in the U.S., big retail has not helped farmers — it is federal support that makes agriculture profitable. In its last Farm Bill in 2008, the U.S. made a provision of $307 billion for agriculture for the next five years.

Where is the justification for such massive support if big retail was providing farmers better prices? And let us not forget, despite these subsidies studies have shown that one farmer in Europe quits agriculture every minute.

The second argument is that big retail will squeeze out middleman and therefore provide a better price to farmers. This is again not borne by facts. In the U.S., some studies have shown that the net income of farmers has come down from 70 per cent in the early 20th century to less than four per cent in 2005.

This is because big retail actually brings in a new battery of middlemen — quality controller, standardiser, certification agency, processor, packaging consultants etc. It is these middlemen who walk away with the profits and the farmer is left to survive on the subsidy dole.

Monopolistic power enables these companies to go in for predatory pricing. Empirical studies have shown that consumer prices in supermarkets in Latin America, Africa and Asia have remained higher than the open market by 20 to 30 per cent.

And finally, the argument that multi-brand retail will provide adequate scientific storage and thereby save millions of tonnes of food grains from rotting. I don’t know where in the world big retail has provided backend grain storage facilities?

FDI is already allowed in storage, and no investment has come in. Let it also be known that even the 30-per-cent local sourcing clause for single-brand retail has already been challenged and quietly put in cold storage by the Ministry of Commerce. 

Employment: The Indian retail market is estimated to be around $400 billion with more than 12 million retailers employing 40 million people. Ironically, Wal-Mart’s turnover is also around $420 billion, but it employs only 2.1 million people. If Wal-Mart can achieve the same turnover with hardly a fraction of the workforce employed by the Indian retail sector, how do we expect big retail to create jobs? It is the Indian retail sector which is a much bigger employer, and big retail will only destroy millions of livelihoods

State government’s prerogative: Very cleverly, the Central government has allowed the State governments the final say in allowing FDI in retail. This may to some extent pacify those State governments opposed to big retail. However, the industry is upbeat and knows well that as per international trade norms, member countries have to provide national treatment. Being a signatory to Bilateral Investment promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPAs), India has to provide national treatment to the investors. Agreements with more than 70 countries have already been signed. State governments will, therefore, have to open up for big retail. Industries will use the legal option to force the States to comply.

And more importantly, let us look at how the virus of big retail spreads, even if the promise is to keep it confined to major cities. Recently, a New York Times expose showed how Wal-Mart had captured nearly 50 per cent of Mexico’s retail market in 10 years. What is important here is that as per the NYT disclosure “the Mexican subsidiary of Wal-Mart, which opened 431 stores in 2011, had paid bribes and an internal enquiry into the matter has been suppressed at corporate headquarters in Arkansas”.

In India, we are aware that Wal-Mart alone had spent Rs.52 crore in two years to lobby, as per a disclosure statement made in the U.S. It has certainly paid off.

Devinder Sharma in Ground Reality and The Hindu

Obama, Manmohan Singh and the innocence of Muslims

Of all the comments made on the dirty film, the comment made by Vaiko stands tall. He has said உலகெங்கும் வாழும் அனைத்து மக்களின் நெஞ்சிலும் நெருப்பை கொட்டிவிட்ட சி‌னிமா (A film which has showered fire in the hearts of all throughout the world). He is right. Even Hillary Clinton has expressed her anguish and has condemned the film. Who is Hillary? She is not a Muslim. She is just a politician. One can imagine the toxicity of the film by her anguish.

The film reminds me of another mischievious, outrageous book written by Salman Rushdie. When The Satanic Verses was released in late eighties, similar reactions were seen throughout the world. The Indian Government acted swiftly then and promptly banned the book. But now it is not the case. It has not yet banned the movie. It has not yet blocked the URLs from the web.

How to vent our feelings? How to condemn this ugly, dirty and vulgar film? How to condemn this wretched movie?

Should we target the US embassies worldwide? Should we demonstrate in front of the embassies of USA? Is it the only way? I think we Indians are blessed with another option too. We could go in procession to the Raj Bhavans in the State capitals and submit a memorundum to the Governors there. We live in an age when there is not an iota of a difference between the Indian Government and Obama's government. What is the big deal there. The Manmohan Goverment has opened up the retail trade to American companies in the name of economic reforms. This move clearly demonstrates the slavery attitude of the UPA government.


உலகெங்கும் வாழும் அனைத்து மக்களின் நெஞ்சிலும் நெருப்பை கொட்டிவிட்ட சி‌னிமா என்று வைகோ சொல்லியிருப்பது மிக்க பொருத்தம்.
எண்பதுகளில் சல்மான் ருஷ்டியின் சாத்தானியக் கவிதைகளை விடவும் அதிகமான பாதிப்பை அமெரிக்கப் படம் செய்துவிட்டுள்ளதகத் தோன்றுகிறது. இந்திய அரசாங்கம் அந்தப் புத்தகத்தை  உடனடியாக தடைச் செய்துவிட்டது. ஆனால் அமெரிக்கப் படம் இன்று வரை தடை செய்யப்படவில்லை.

இந்த அழுக்குப் படத்துக்கு எதிரான நம்முடைய உணர்வுகளை எப்படி வெளிப்படுத்துவது? இந்த கேடுகெட்ட படத்தை எப்படி தான் கண்டிப்பது?

அமெரிக்கத் தூதரங்களுக்கு முன் ஆர்ப்பாட்டம் செய்வதுதான் ஒரே வழியா? ராஜ் பவன் வரை ஊர்வலமாகச் சென்று ஆளுநரிடம் கோரிக்கை மனு தரலாமே? இன்றையக் காலத்தில் இந்திய அரசுக்கும் ஒபாமாவின் அரசுக்கும் என்ன பெரிய வித்தியாசம் இருக்கிறது? சில்லறை வணிகத்திலும் அந்நிய முதலீட்டை FDI  அனுமதித்துள்ள மன்மோகன் அரசு ஒபாமாவின் கூலியாளாகத் தானேச் செயல்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது? 

How to protest against the dirty film on the Prophet of Islam?

"I don't want to hear it"
I screamed when my friend started to describe what he has seen in the blasphemous film.
I had to repeat the same when another friend started to do the same.
I had to advice another friend who had posted the link to the dirty film to remove the link.
....

For me the best way to tackle the sinister designs of USA and Israel is to completely ignore the film. Don't talk about the dirty film. Don't hear about the dirty film.
Be calm. Register your anguish and agony to the Americans. Let the Americans know that we are hurt - deeply hurt - by the calculated, cunning and evil move by some of their co-citizens.

And the best way to counter this menace is to introduce the life and message of Prophet of Islam to others. That is the need of the hour.
Here is the best way to respond to the nefarious designs of USA and Israel. I have been avoiding coco-cola and pepsi cola for the past twelve years. Do it if you can.

US loses AH-64 Apache Helicopter in Afghanistan

America is at war with Afghanistan. It continues to bomb, kill, maim and massacre the innocents Afghanis - men and women, brothers and sisters, young and old - everyday. Afghan brothers and sisters continue to defy the American aggression with all their might. 

As a result America loses its soldiers, sophisticated vehicles, helicopters etc. As media is at the hands of Americans we don't get enough negative news about woundings, crashes and other negative news in the US military in Afghanistan. And the civilised world do not know or care that the US is at war in Afghanistan. 

Here is an video of a APACHE helicopter being crashed in Afghanistan. Here and  Here

Iran would never make atom bomb: Ayatullah Khamenei

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons and will never seek nuclear weapons as it has the capacity to challenge the nuclear-backed influence such powers rely on,” said Ayatollah Khamenei, leader of the Islamic Revolution in a Wednesday meeting in Tehran with the director and officials of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and nuclear scientists the Leader described the country’s nuclear and technological achievements further in line with national interests and beneficial for the future of the country.

“There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

“If nations are allowed to independently make progress in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace, science, technology and industry, there will be no room left for the tyrannical dominance of world powers,” said the Leader.

“Sanctions have been in place since the victory of the Islamic Revolution while the nuclear issue is a matter of the past few years; therefore their (the West) real problem is with a nation that has decided to be independent.”

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei addressed a meeting with head and officials of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and nuclear scientists in Tehran on February 22, 2011.  Here

Arundhati Roy on Occupy the wall Street

Today, we know that the "American way of life" – the model that the rest of the world is meant to aspire towards – has resulted in 400 people owning the wealth of half of the population of the United States. It has meant thousands of people being turned out of their homes and their jobs while the US government bailed out banks and corporations – American International Group (AIG) alone was given $182 billion.

The Indian government worships US economic policy. As a result of 20 years of the free market economy, today, 100 of India's richest people own assets worth one-quarter of the country's GDP while more than 80% of the people live on less than 50 cents a day; 250,000 farmers, driven into a spiral of death, have committed suicide. We call this progress, and now think of ourselves as a superpower. Like you, we are well-qualified: we have nuclear bombs and obscene inequality.

The good news is that people have had enough and are not going to take it any more. The Occupy movement has joined thousands of other resistance movements all over the world in which the poorest of people are standing up and stopping the richest corporations in their tracks. Few of us dreamed that we would see you, the people of the United States on our side, trying to do this in the heart of Empire. I don't know how to communicate the enormity of what this means.

They (the 1%) say that we don't have demands… perhaps they don't know, that our anger alone would be enough to destroy them. But here are some things – a few "pre-revolutionary" thoughts I had – for us to think about together:

We want to put a lid on this system that manufactures inequality. We want to put a cap on the unfettered accumulation of wealth and property by individuals as well as corporations. We demand:

• An end to cross-ownership in businesses. For example, weapons manufacturers cannot own TV stations; mining corporations cannot run newspapers; business houses cannot fund universities; drug companies cannot control public health funds.
• Two, natural resources and essential infrastructure – water supply, electricity, health, and education – cannot be privatized.
• Three, everybody must have the right to shelter, education and healthcare.
• Four, the children of the rich cannot inherit their parents' wealth.

A report in Informationclearinghouse. Here.

Saudi Arabia in quest of a BOMB!

For all its wealth, Saudi Arabia does not have the technical and scientific base to create a nuclear infrastructure. It has many expatriate-staffed universities, and tens of thousands of Saudi students have been sent to universities overseas. But because of an ideological attitude unsuited to the acquisition of modern scientific skills, there has been little success in producing a significant number of accomplished Saudi engineers and scientists.

Perforce, a Saudi Arabia in search of the bomb will likely turn to Pakistan for help. An outright transfer of nuclear weapons by Pakistan to Saudi Arabia is improbable. Surely this would lead to extreme reaction from the United States and Europe.

Instead, the kingdom's route to nuclear weapons is likely to be long, beginning with the acquisition of nuclear reactors for electricity generation. The spent fuel from reactors can be reprocessed for plutonium. Like Iran, Saudi Arabia will have to find creative ways for skirting various treaty obstacles. But it will doubtless take heart from the US decision to "forgive" India for its nuclear testing in 1998 and eventually reward it with a nuclear deal.

The kingdom's first step toward making nuclear weapons may soon be taken. In June 2011, it revealed plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years at a cost of more than $300 billion. To create, run, and maintain the resulting nuclear infrastructure will require importing large numbers of technical workers. Some will no doubt be brought over from the West, Russia, and countries once part of the former Soviet Union. But Saudi Arabia will likely find engineering and scientific skills from Pakistan particularly desirable.

Pervez Hoodbhoy in The Bulletin. Here

What can replace the dollor?

For more than a half-century, the US dollar has been not only America’s currency, but the world’s as well. It has been the dominant unit used in cross-border transactions and the principal asset held as reserves by central banks and governments.

But, already before the recent debt-ceiling imbroglio, the dollar had begun to lose its luster. Its share in the identified foreign-exchange reserves of central banks, for example, had fallen to just over 60%, from 70% a decade ago.

The explanation is simple: the United States no longer dominates the world economy to the extent that it did in the past. It makes sense that the international monetary system should follow the global economy in becoming more multipolar. Just as the US now has to share the world stage with other economies, the dollar will have to make room for other international currencies.

What’s different now is that a pox has been cast on both houses. The US debt-ceiling fiasco has raised doubts in the minds of central bankers about the advisability of holding dollars, while Europe’s failure to resolve its sovereign-debt crisis continues to fuel doubt that the euro can survive. Once upon a time (less than a year ago), it was possible to imagine international-reserve portfolios dominated by the dollar and euro; today, anxious central bankers are desperate for alternatives to both sick currencies.

Barry Eichengreen in Project Syndicate. Here

Drones, death, and USA

Large or small, drones raise questions about the growing disconnect between the American public and its wars. Military ethicists concede that drones can turn war into a video game, inflict civilian casualties and, with no Americans directly at risk, more easily draw the United States into conflicts. Drones have also created a crisis of information for analysts on the end of a daily video deluge. Not least, the Federal Aviation Administration has qualms about expanding their test flights at home, as the Pentagon would like. Last summer, fighter jets were almost scrambled after a rogue Fire Scout drone, the size of a small helicopter, wandered into Washington's restricted airspace.

Within the military, no one disputes that drones save American lives. Many see them as advanced versions of “stand-off weapons systems,” like tanks or bombs dropped from aircraft, that the United States has used for decades. “There's a kind of nostalgia for the way wars used to be,” said Deane-Peter Baker, an ethics professor at the United States Naval Academy, referring to noble notions of knight-on-knight conflict. Drones are part of a post-heroic age, he said, and in his view it is not always a problem if they lower the threshold for war. “It is a bad thing if we didn't have a just cause in the first place,” Mr. Baker said. “But if we did have a just cause, we should celebrate anything that allows us to pursue that just cause.”

To Mr. Singer of Brookings, the debate over drones is like debating the merits of computers in 1979: They are here to stay, and the boom has barely begun. “We are at the Wright Brothers Flier stage of this,” he said.

Elisabeth Bumiller & Thom Shanker in The Hindu. Here and Here

Afghanistan's Last Locavores

MANY urban Americans idealize “green living” and “slow food.” But few realize that one of the most promising models for sustainable living is not to be found on organic farms in the United States, but in Afghanistan. A majority of its 30 million citizens still grow and process most of the food they consume. They are the ultimate locavores.

During the 12 months I spent as a State Department political adviser in northern Afghanistan, I was dismayed to see that instead of building on Afghanistan’s traditional, labor-intensive agricultural and construction practices, the United States is using many of its aid dollars to transform this fragile agrarian society into a consumer-oriented, mechanized, fossil-fuel-based economy.

In 2004, the Department of Energy carried out a study of Afghanistan. It revealed abundant renewable energy resources that could be used to build small-scale wind- and solar-powered systems to generate electricity and solar thermal devices for cooking and heating water.

Rather than focus on those resources, the United States government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build large diesel generators and exploit the country’s oil, gas and coal reserves. The drilling of new oil wells may provide unskilled, poorly paid jobs for some locals, but the bulk of the profits will likely flow overseas or into the pockets of a few warlords and government officials.

Patricia McArdle in New York Times. here

Eisenhower's worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs

Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?

Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.

This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.

Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned".

Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.

Eisenhower

It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes".

I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."

Simon Jenkins in Guardian. Here

Obama's nefarious designs in Syria

The parliamentary election result in Turkey ensuring another term for the ruling "Islamist" party AKP (Justice and Development Party) significantly strengthens the US position on Syria. Ankara has hardened its stance on Assad and has begun openly criticizing him. A more obtrusive Turkish role in destabilizing Assad and forcing a regime change in Damascus can now be expected in the coming weeks. Ironically, Turkey also controls the Bosphorous Straits.

By improving ties with Turkey in the past decade, Moscow had been hoping that Ankara would gradually move toward an independent foreign policy. The Kremlin's expectation was that the two countries could get together and form a condominium over the Black Sea. But as events unfold, it is becoming clear that Ankara is reverting to its earlier priorities as a NATO country and US's pre-eminent partner in the region. Ankara cannot be faulted: it made a shrewd assessment and drew a balance sheet concluding that its interests are best served by identifying with the Western move to effect a regime change in Syria.

Additionally, Ankara finds it profitable that it identifies with the Saudi approach to the upheaval in the Middle East. The wealth Arabs in the oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf are willing to send their "green money" to Turkey. Ankara also shares Saudi misgivings about Iran's rise as regional power.

In sum, the US is slowly but steadily getting the upper hand over its agenda of a regime change in Syria. Whether Moscow will buckle under this immense pressure and accept a rollback of its influence in Syria is the big question. Moscow has threatened to cooperate with Beijing and adopt a common stance over Syria. But Moscow's ability to counter the American juggernaut over Syria is weakening by the day.

The course of events over Syria will certainly impact profoundly on the US-Russia reset. The Obama administration seems to have done its homework and concluded that it is worth taking that risk for the sake of ensuring Israel's security. The warship that sailed into the Black Sea carries a blunt message to Russia to accept that it is a mere pale shadow of the former Soviet Union.

M K Bhadra kumar in Asia Times online. Here

End the War on Terror

The first thing the president could do to calm an anxious world is dial down his triumphalist rhetoric. He should stop saying that “America can do whatever it sets its mind to” when discussing the war on terror.

And then he should call the war off and deal with terrorism as a law enforcement problem. So long as war remains official policy, America will be tempted to undertake actions—drone attacks, targeted killings, interference in civil wars—as a matter of routine that should be reserved only for emergencies.

The open-ended, ill-defined nature of the war on terrorism puts America at odds with potentially every country, lacing disagreements and conflicts with the threat of aggression. This ultimately does more to compromise the world’s sense of security than bin Laden ever could.

 Shikah Dalmia in Reason. More Here

Killing of Osama: It's a dirty game based on lies, cunningness, hatred and deceit

When I watched the photograph of Obama, Hilary and co, watching the CIA briefing on Operation Geronimo, I was reminded of the movie “Hard Target” (1993).

In that movie a bunch of psychopaths plays the game of head hunters. They feed some malnourished people and make them physically strong. They then organize an event where those folks are to run for their life and in the process those psychopath hunts them down. The psychos then laugh at their laurels each time, till the hero Van Dam, takes those bulls by the horn and give a run for their money.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden looks to me a script of similar to that of “Hard Target.” That bunch of most powerful people on this earth reminded me of those psychopaths of the movie who took sadist pleasure in taking the blood of those running for life, playing the dirty game “This is who we are.”

I am sure, when it might have been announced that “enemy is killed in action” Obama may have done the NBA hero Karim Abdul Jbbar’s act, leaping up few feet from the ground, raising his hand in exclamation shouting “We got him”!

To me, Osama was like, Van Dam who took up the challenge by the scruff and for ten years defied the most powerful nation on the earth equating with the hero of “Hard Target,” eventually to fall to the superior arrow. This however does not mean that arrow has upstaged the shield and the duel has come to rest. It’s an unending fight with no clear cut winner.

It’s a dirty game based on lies, cunningness, hatred and deceit. The most ironical part is there seems to be a conspiracy of silence among the nations of the world and none has the moral courage to say to stop this madness.

There are few exceptions. Former Cuban President Fidel Castro criticized the way the United States carried out the raid against Osama bin Laden. He said the U.S. raid in Pakistan violated that country's laws and offended its dignity.

In India, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK President M. Karunanidhi said the path taken by Osama bin Laden cannot be termed as ‘Islamic terrorism.’ He argued that just because bin Laden took to terrorism to achieve his goal, it cannot be called Islamic terrorism. Anger against any person cannot be justified in the form of terrorism, he wrote.

However, these are fringe voices and by and large the community of nations has condoned the acts of the US and it acts that it has skirted under the war against terror.

It’s only China that criticized the United States for violating' Pakistan's sovereignty by carrying out a military operation to kill Osama bin Laden saying “China holds that the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of any country should be respected.”

There are no two opinions that terrorism in any form has to be opposed tooth and nail but then this does not mean that those who become the cause of terrorism should be condoned.

Syed Ali Mujtaba in Mujtaba's Musings. More Here

Why Osama failed? Because, he thought he had the licence to kill

Osama Bin Laden was a Visionary.

His Vision was to establish God’s Kingdom on earth. A man who had the means to live like a king preferred to live the difficult life of a fugitive in order to see his Vision fulfilled.

But he failed.

He failed because he thought he had the licence to kill – to kill not only those who did not rule by divine law, but also people who even innocently came in the way. He obviously considered the latter as part of inevitable collateral damages.

He failed because he himself contravened the divine law. The divine law did give him the licence to resist and fight injustices ( refer Qur’aan Chapter 4: Verse 135), but it did not give him the licence to hit soft targets, destroy public property and kill innocent people just to spite the unjust rulers on that account (refer 5:32).

But the Muslims of the world are apt to ask, “What about the Bushes, the Blaires and the Obamas of the Western Powers who exercise their self-given licences to kill or help kill the innocents in their thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and display scant respect for the sovereignty of other nations?”

Well, the situation may best be understood through an example. A house is successfully burgled at night. It does not mean that the burglar shall never be punished for the crime. Allah may just be keeping him aside for now to give him a greater punishment later. Now, in the meantime, He is either testing the victim of the burglary or giving him a warning punishment for some impropriety he (victim) might have earlier committed.

And on a national scale there is the example of Germany’s Hitler. About 70 years ago, he terrorised other nations into abject surrender before him. And for quite some years he had a distinct upper hand over other nations. But what happened to him in the end? He not only lost all his conquered territory, but he lost his own nation to others in an utter defeat. And he died an ignominious death in a bunker!

“O you who believe! Seek help with patience and prayer. Certainly, Allah is with those who are patient! And say not unto those who are killed, in Allah's Path, as dead. Nay! They are alive, but you perceive not. And, certainly, We shall test you with something of the fear and the hunger, and with the loss in wealth, life and production. And gladden those who are patient, with the prophecy of good future. Those who, when any adversity confronts them, say, "We do indeed belong to Allah; and indeed are we to return to Him!" Those are the ones upon whom are blessings from their Lord and His grace; and those are the ones that are rightly guided!” (2:153 to 157)

Muslims! Take heart from the Qur’aanic passage above. And remember Allah’s Path lies in following the Qur’aan – and not deviating from it. And have complete trust in Allah. If you do not have that trust, you are not Muslims.

 Mohammed Shafi in RabbunAllah. Here

Why Obama got Osama - the golden goose - Killed?

 

Osama bin laden was very useful for the USA. It could bomb at innocents in the name of Osama. It could wage war over new territories and countries citing the name of Osama. It could tear apart the sovereignty of far away lands at will invoking the name of Osama.

It could allot billions for the war over terror using the bogeyman of Osama. It could promulgate stringent laws, It could humiliate and strip search the leaders of third world countries, It could hoodwink its public - everything in the name of Osama.

That is why the hawky bush and his poodle Mush kept the golden goose alive and kicking. Remember how a video casette released in the name of Osama on the eve of elections swing the prospects of Bush? Then why did Obama got Osama - the golden goose - killed? 

More Here

Obama kills Osama: This is not Justice, it was an extra-judicial execution

As the news of Osama bin Laden’s death filtered out onto the streets of the United States it triggered unsightly scenes of undiluted hysteria, chest-thumping and back-slapping which has sadly become a trademark of the vengeful ‘hang’em high’ lobby that emerged from the rubble of 9/11.

And just like George W. Bush did on that horrific day way back in 2001, U.S. President Barack Obama unashamedly wallowed in a flag-waving, nationalistic wave of emotion, crowing about national unity and everyone pulling together as he revealed the manhunt for the world’s most wanted man had finally been concluded.

It mattered not the Al-Qaeda leader was unarmed -- that detail was kept back as hugely distorted stories zoomed around the globe about how the evil Arab used his wife as a human shield while firing off rounds at the heroic soldiers who risked their all for Uncle Sam.

The naked display of uncontrollable gung-ho emotion was bad enough but then a smug-looking Obama began sounding like Glenn Ford in a scene from High Noon as he lectured the world about ""justice being done"".

To quote my favorite journalist Gary Younge: “This was not justice, it was an extra-judicial execution. If you shoot a man twice in the head you do not find him guilty. You find him dead. This was revenge. And it was served very cold indeed.”

Mercifully, in this sea of madness another sane voice in America also drowned out the hate-filled chorus and it came from an unlikely source - 9/11 survivor Harry Waizer.

If anyone had a right to jump up and down like a lunatic at the show of a full moon it was him, but instead of adding to the hatefest he said: ""I just can’t find it in me to be glad one more person is dead, even if it is Osama Bin Laden.""

I hope now that America’s Number One Bogeyman is no more the USA returns to some semblance of normality that has been absent from its landscape since the now discredited War on Terror began.

Yvonne Ridley in Tehran Times. More Here

Pakistan is playing dumb

If everyone was so clever and the U.S. had been privy to bin Laden's not-so-secret location (Pakistan claims to be, as ever, the last to find out) since August 2010, how does one explain the ferocious drone campaign that took place from September to December of that year?

In the span of 102 days, an unprecedented 52 drone strikes were launched against Pakistan, none targeting Abbottabad or its environs. President Obama ratcheted up the drone war almost immediately upon entering the White House—ordering his first strike against Pakistan 72 hours after assuming the presidency.

Some 2,000 civilians have been killed, none of whom happened to be bin Laden or any of his dastardly lieutenants like Mullah Omar or Ayman al Zawahri, and yet the U.S. defense budget has called for a 75 percent increase in funds to continue and enhance drone operations. This is a frightening development.

Fathima Bhutto in The Daily Beast. More Here.

US has no business to be in Afghanistan-Pakistan and Iraq NOW

Obama & Osama

SO America has finally managed to kill the monster it had created. And in one of those ironies that fate throws up, Bin Laden met his end at the hands of someone whose name has often been confused with his own. In his death, Bin Laden hasn’t just saved the struggling US president; he may have gifted his nemesis a second term in office.

But can you really kill men like OBL? He was not just another human being, a man of flesh and blood like you and me. Rather, he represented an idea. And you can’t kill ideas — even if you happen to be the most powerful nation on the planet and have the deadliest of arms man has invented at your disposal.
The long crippled man who spurned a life of obscene luxury to live on the run forever like a hunted animal, had to go the way he did. There’s hardly a surprise there. The real story and feat lies in the fact that the Al-Qaeda chief managed to evade the long and powerful arms of the empire for so long — for 11 long years.

While the “coalition of the willing” hunted the most wanted man on the planet all across the wild frontier stretching from Pakistan’s Northwest to the Afghan border with Russia, he ostensibly lived right in the heart of the Abbottabad cantonment, a stone’s throw away from Pakistan’s elite Kakul Military Academy.
What an extraordinary, extraordinary story! And what chutzpah, what masterstroke of the evil genius that Bin Laden was!

And what embarrassment for Pakistan’s leaders! They haven’t been just caught unawares; they’ve been found with their pants down. The country has become the laughing stock of the whole world. It’s damned if it admits that this was a one-sided US operation and it had no clue whatsoever until US choppers with their elite commandos barged right into the heart of the cantonment and took out their man. It’s damned if it suggests otherwise.

How’s it possible for the world’s most hunted man with a $50 million bounty on his head to live next to a military base close to Islamabad and go unnoticed by Pakistan’s fabled sleuths? These are disturbing questions that no one seems to have any answers for.

Whoever is responsible for this mess, they’ve put Pakistan in a rather nice spot, perhaps like never before in its history. The ever voracious and vicious television networks across the border haven’t stopped partying since. It’s the great Pakistan barbecue season all over again.

All his life Bin Laden had been an enigma and a perpetual source of concern to his distinguished clan and the land of his birth. Now he has visited a calamity on the folks who hosted and worked with him during the glorious decade of the Afghan jihad.

Lest we forget the commander of the faithful in that “holy war” against the so-called “Evil Empire” was none other than the leader of the free world. Uncle Sam headed the Western coalition as he does now. Pakistan was only their second lieutenant, a facilitator if you will. Only when the music stopped, Pakistan was left holding the baby. Everyone went home and it had to live with the mess that was left behind. Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Taleban and the whole rag-tag army of various other groups are a blast from the past that the West doesn’t want to have anything to do with today.

When the tide turned after 9/11 and Pakistan went with the flow, the chickens came home to roost. Bin Laden came home to where he thought he belonged. His final suicide mission was to blow up his former friends and the land that sheltered him.

However, the ultimate victim of the misguided missile that the billionaire Bin Laden fired had been the faith that he claimed to champion. He brought nothing but disgrace and disaster to Muslim lands and fellow believers. More Muslims than the Westerners or Christians and Jews have died as a direct consequence of Al-Qaeda attacks, or by those that were inspired by his murderous ideology. A noble religion of 1.6 billion believers has come to be condemned as a death cult, with all Arabs and Muslims being tarred as terrorists. For which Bin Laden will not perhaps be ever forgiven by Muslims.

Yet you can’t help a twinge of sadness at the tragic end Bin Laden has met — far from the land of his birth that he so loved. He was driven by the belief — hopelessly distorted as it was — that he was fighting to free Muslim lands and for justice for the Palestinians, Afghans and for the oppressed everywhere.

Muslims never identified with OBL or condoned his appalling crimes. They, however, understood what forced a quiet young man to kick his billion-dollar fortune and take up arms. He struck a chord in not just Arabs and Muslims but in the dispossessed everywhere by taking on the big bullies who have killed more innocents and wreaked more destruction on our world than a million Bin Ladens could have managed in their life time.

Obama watching the gruesome murder of OBL

Besides, the way this whole charade has been played out with President Obama and his aides “coolly” watching the action live in real time as if it was a baseball game, and his body being dumped into the Arabian Sea has only added to their disgust and outrage. Using all that overwhelming force to kill an unarmed, ailing man without a trial. So much for America’s fabled justice system and due process!

Shouldn’t Bin Laden have been put on the trial for the crimes he has been accused of? What was the hurry to buy him at sea? What was it that America was trying to cover? And how’s Obama’s justice different from the “dead-or-alive” cowboy retribution of his predecessor?

But dead or alive, we haven’t heard the last of this yet. Bin Laden may be dead and gone; his cause is not. Others will take his place and may already have. If the world is to prevent the rise of more Bin Ladens, it must take its scalpel to the festering cancer of injustice and oppression in the Holy Land. Now that the so-called architect of 9/11 is gone, the US has no pretext or business to be in Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Bin Laden has taken with him to his watery grave the West’s raison d’être for its imperial project in the Muslim world.

Aijaz Zaka Syed (szaijaz@hotmail.com) in his best in Arab News. Here.