The BDS Movement - a cunning trick on the believers and an excuse for the disbelievers

It seems that every other day someone else jumps onto the bandwagon of boycotting 'Israel' with the aim of deterring it from its plans of total annihilation in Palestine so that it may expand and consume its human and material resources.

We must not be overtaken by emotion and follow devoid of any forethought. Allah (swt) says: "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know." (2:216)

It may seem as if the BDS movement is a movement defending Muslims and Al-Aqsa, however Allah (swt) is telling us that there are certain things that may seem from appearance that they are good but in fact they are bad. 

We should already know that every problem man faces in life, Allah (swt) has given its solution via the beloved Messenger of Allah (saw). The issue of Palestine, the Muslims and Al-Aqsa is an issue for the entire Ummah. Therefore we should seek the solution from Islam, and this solution is the permanent solution. 

We can quite clearly see that the Muslims in Palestine do not have the capability to remove the occupation and therefore the responsibility is placed on the surrounding Muslims, a duty of sufficiency. However the barrier to such liberation is the lack of unity, the grip of the despot leaders , the scarcity of understanding and ultimately the absence of an Imam (Caliph) to lead the Ummah.

The BDS movement creates a false sense of relief for the Ummah, and inaction from international powers and organisations. The facts show us that it is the Americans and the Zionists within congress are those who break-even the balances of 'Israel'. Every year the aid is increased to cover any lack of finance for the previous year and the money spent on destroying the Muslims in Palestine.  

In the summary of U.S Aid to Israel by the Congressional Research Service it states:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $124.3 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance 

It goes on to state a number of other agreements that see 'Israel' receiving aid which the BDS movement could only dream of reaching its numbers. The annual FMF (Foreign Military Finance) is now increasing by 1 billion dollars.

Israeli media sources have said that the United States and Israel have held “preliminary” discussions over future military assistance with Israel seeking between $4.2 billion and $4.5 billion in annual FMF. 

Is this increase in aid for 'Israel' worth it for the Americans? Well of course! Why you ask?

• It nullifies nations from seeking justice on behalf of the Palestinians through international law.
• Allows the politicians in 'Israel' to stoke up hatred between the 'Zionists and the others', creating an "us and them" mentality, to push through draconian laws and further slaughter of Palestinian Muslims in cold blood without warrant or accountability.
• Gives the Zionist congress in America further reason to increase their support for the illegal entity, and thus bankrolling any new military development for defending their 'homeland'.
• Allows the U.S. to test out its latest advancements in military technology against the Muslims who are unarmed and unequipped. 

The longer we stay idle on this oppression and seek justice from other than Islam, the humiliation will continue and our noses will be rubbed in the dirt on the Day of Judgement while those who have been martyred in Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza and all over, shall get the justice they deserve, Paradise. 

“We were the most humiliated people on earth and Allah gave us honour through Islam. If we ever seek honour through anything else, Allah will humiliate us again.” Umar ibn al Khattab (ra).

Terror in Mali: An Attack on China and Russia?

International media have now confirmed that at least nine of the 27 killed in the attack were Chinese and Russian. While this alone would indeed be curious, it is the identities and positions of those killed that is particularly striking. The three Chinese victims were important figures in China’s China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC), while the Russians were employees of Russian airline Volga-Dnepr. That it was these individuals who were killed at the very outset of the attack suggests that they were the likely targets of what could perhaps rightly be called a terrorist assassination operation.

But why these men? And why now? To answer these questions, one must have an understanding of the roles of both these companies in Mali and, at the larger level, the activities of China and Russia in Mali. Moreover, the targeted killing should be seen in light of the growing assertiveness of both countries against terrorism in Syria and internationally. Considering the strategic partnership between the two countries – a partnership that is expanding seemingly every day – it seems that the fight against terrorism has become yet another point of convergence between Moscow and Beijing. In addition, it must be recalled that both countries have had their share of terror attacks in recent years, with each having made counter-terrorism a central element in their national security strategies, as well as their foreign policy.

And so, given these basic facts, it becomes clear that the attack in Mali was no random act of terrorism, but a carefully planned and executed operation designed to send a clear message to Russia and China.

The Attack, the Victims, and the Significance

On Friday November 20, 2015 a team of reportedly “heavily armed and well-trained gunmen” attacked a well known international hotel in Bamako, Mali. While the initial reports were somewhat sketchy and contradictory, in the days since the attack and siege that followed, new details have emerged that are undeniably worrying as they provide a potential motive for the terrorists.

It is has since been announced that three Chinese nationals were killed at the outset of the attack: Zhou Tianxiang, Wang Xuanshang, and Chang Xuehui. Aside from the obviously tragic fact that these men were murdered in cold blood, one must examine carefully who they were in order to get a full sense of the importance of their killings. Mr. Zhou was the General Manager of the China Railway Construction Corporation’s (CRCC) international group, Mr. Wang was the Deputy General Manager of CRCC’s international group, and Mr. Chang was General Manager of the CRCC’s West Africa division. The significance should become immediately apparent as these men were the principal liaisons between Beijing and the Malian government in the major railway investments that China has made in Mali. With railway construction being one of the key infrastructure and economic development programs in landlocked Mali, the deaths of these three Chinese nationals is clearly both a symbolic and very tangible attack on China’s partnership with Mali.

In late 2014, Mali’s President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita traveled to China to attend the World Economic Forum in Tianjin. On the sidelines of the forum the Malian president sealed a number of critical development deals with the Chinese government, the most high-profile of which were railway construction and improvement agreements. Chief among the projects is the construction of an $8 billion, 900km railway linking Mali’s capital of Bamako with the Atlantic port and capital of neighboring Guinea, Conakry. The project, seen by many experts as essential for bringing Malian mineral wealth to world markets, is critical to the economic development of the country. Additionally, CRCC was also tapped to renovate the railway connecting Bamako with Senegal’s capital of Dakar, with the project carrying a price tag of nearly $1.5 billion.

These two projects alone were worth nearly $10 billion, while a number of other projects, including road construction throughout the conflict-ridden north of the country, as well as construction of a much needed new bridge in gridlock-plagued Bamako, brought the cumulative worth of the Chinese investments to near (or above) the total GDP for Mali ($12 billion in 2014). Such massive investments in the country were obviously of great significance to the Malian government both because of their economically transformative qualities, and also because they had solidified China as perhaps the single most dominant investor in Mali, a country long since under the post-colonial economic yoke of France, and military yoke of the United States.

It seems highly implausible, to say the least, that a random terror attack solely interested in killing as many civilians as possible would have as its first three victims these three men, perhaps three of the most important men in the country at the time. But the implausible coincidences don’t stop there.

Among the dead are also six Russians, all of whom are said to have been employees of the Russian commercial cargo airline Volga-Dnepr. While at first glance it may seem irrelevant that the Russian victims worked for an airline, it is in fact very telling as it indicates a similar motive to the killing of the Chinese nationals; specifically, Volga-Dnepr is, according to its Wikipedia page, “a world leader in the global market for the movement of oversize, unique and heavy air cargo…[It] serves governmental and commercial organizations, including leading global businesses in the oil and gas, energy, aerospace, agriculture and telecommunications industries as well as the humanitarian and emergency services sectors.” The company has transported everything from gigantic excavators to airplanes, helicopters, mini-factories, and power plants, not to mention heavy machines used in energy extraction.

And so, their killing, like that of the CRCC executives, is a symbolic strike against Chinese and Russian investment in the country. And perhaps even more importantly, the attack was a symbolic attack upon the very nature of Sino-Russian collaboration and partnership, especially in the context of economic development in Africa and the Global South.

It would be worthwhile to add that Volga-Dnepr has also been involved in military transport services for NATO and the US until at least the beginning of the Ukraine conflict and Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Whether this fact has any bearing on the employees being targeted, that would be pure conjecture. Suffice to say though that Volga-Dnepr was no ordinary airline, but one that was integral to the entire economic development initiative in Mali. And this is really the key point: China and Russia are development partners for the former French colonial possession and US puppet state.

To be sure, China is not offering such deals to Mali solely out of altruism and in the spirit of generosity; naturally China expects to enrich itself and ensure access to raw materials, resources, and markets in Mali now and in the future. This is the sort of “win-win” partnership forever being touted by China as the cornerstone of its aid and investment throughout Africa. Indeed, in many ways, Mali is a prime example of just how China operates on the continent. Rather than a purely exploitative investment model (the IMF and World Bank examples come to mind), China is engaging in true partnership. And, contrary to what many have argued (that China is merely a rival imperialist power in Africa), China’s activities in Africa are by and large productive for the whole of the countries where China invests, a few egregious bad examples aside.

China is a friend of Africa, and it has demonstrated that repeatedly throughout the last decade. And perhaps it is just this sort of friendship that was under attack in the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako.


While the world has been transfixed by terrorism from the downing of the Russian airliner in Egypt, to the inhuman attacks in Paris and Beirut, not nearly enough attention has been paid to the attack in Mali. Perhaps one of the reasons the episode has not gotten the necessary scrutiny and investigation is the seemingly endless series of terror attacks that have transfixed news consumers worldwide. Perhaps it is simply good old fashioned racism that sees Africa as little more than a collection of chaotic states constantly in conflict, with violence and death being the norm.

Or maybe the real reason almost no one has shined a light on this episode is because of the global implications of the killings, and the obvious message they sent. While media organizations seem to have deliberately ignored the implication of the attacks of November 20th in Mali, one can rest assured that Beijing and Moscow got the message loud and clear. And one can also rest assured that the Chinese and Russians are well aware of the true motives of the attack. The question remains: how will these countries respond?

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/terror-in-mali-attack-on-china-and.html#more

Putin’s aspirations lead Russia towards disaster

The Russian military operations in Syria still raise many questions regarding the objectives, limits, duration and chances of achieving their goal of reinstalling Moscow as a dominant world power.

Russia’s conflict with the West came about as a result of the deployment of a US missile shield in Europe, Washington’s update of its tactical nuclear weapons and NATO’s advancement towards its western border. After Putin’s enthusiastic efforts to achieve closer integration with Europe and the West in general during his first three years in power, he changed direction suddenly and worked towards building a strong state. His strategy was based on two axes: Russia’s near neighbours and those further away. He has sought to regain control of what he considers to be Russian territory annexed by neighbouring countries and to restore Moscow’s control in the former Soviet Union countries under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. The goal behind the second axis is to limit America’s global role and influence and to allow Russia to play a prominent role in international decision-making.

These efforts include working towards Russia regaining its position in an international system based on bipolarity alongside the US. In order to achieve this, Putin launched economic and military programmes to regain balance within Russia and increase its ability to take regional and international action to impose its presence and boost its prestige.

Hence, he worked on strengthening Russia’s military presence in the former Soviet Union by means of military bases and strengthening the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. He also called for the formation of a customs union to include the former Soviet Union countries and for the adoption of a military doctrine based on reinforcing missile defences and the development of carrying systems for nuclear warheads, such as missiles, submarines and strategic bombs. Conventional weapons have also been modernised, with an operational command and naval fleet based permanently in the Mediterranean. In addition, a network of military bases has been built to house air defence forces, rapid reaction brigades and navy vessels deployed above the Arctic Circle.

Having adopted brinkmanship as a tactic, Putin is also doing a lot of muscle-flexing, and is hinting at the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. Russia’s spending on arms now exceeds 9 per cent of GDP as the president deploys aircraft and ships around the world.

The outbreak of the Arab Spring revolutions sparked additional disputes between Russia and the West, especially after the latter’s intervention in Libya, depriving Russia of its piece of the cake, as well as threatening its interests in Syria. This pushed Russia into engaging in an indirect confrontation with the West by supporting the Syrian regime in its fight against the revolution and protecting the regime politically by using its veto at the UN on four occasions. Moscow has supplied Damascus with weapons, money and military experts, and has coordinated with Iran to prevent the Assad regime from collapsing under too much political and military pressure.

The moves by the European Union and NATO to allow Ukraine to join them irked Russia, due to Moscow’s imagining of a Eurasian Union. This has escalated the tension in the region, with Russia pushing ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine to hold a referendum and declare the establishment of the “Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic”.

Russia has exploited the cool relations between the US a number of its allies, such as the Arab Gulf states on the back of the Iranian nuclear deal, and Egypt on the back of Washington’s reservations over political oppression, the use of excessive force against the Muslim Brotherhood and the politicisation of the judiciary. Putin has used this to make trade, arms and investment deals as well as contracts to build nuclear power plants, all in the hope of forcing Washington to deal with Russia as another world power.

This was achieved and Russia is now living with inflation and deflation due to Western economic sanctions and the fall in oil and gas prices. Some Russian observers predict the fall of oil prices to $40 or even $20 per barrel. It is worth noting that for every $1 drop per barrel of oil, Russia loses $2.5 billion.

We must not forget that a fifth of the external debt of $700 billion and the debt accumulated by Russian companies, which amounts to $500 billion, must be repaid this year; nor that capital ranging from $100 and $200 billion was taken out of Russia in 2014. An increase in oil and gas supply after recent large discoveries will reform the market and impose a new balance in which Russia’s share will drop; gas and oil represent about 74 per cent of Russian exports and its revenues make up 50 per cent of the state’s resources, both of which are the main source of hard currency. Western business investments are likely to be withdrawn; indeed, 87 companies have already liquidated or reduced their presence in Russia. This has caused a fall in the value of the rouble; the exchange rate against the dollar has fallen by 20 per cent. It is worth noting that at the beginning of 2014, $1 was equal to around 33 roubles; it is now 66 roubles. This has led to a 30 per cent increase in the price of basic foodstuffs and the decline of growth to below zero per cent.

Despite the fact that Russia’s revenues from oil and its by-products, and natural gas, reached about $3.2 trillion between 2000 and 2013, it did not result in the modernisation of the Russian economy, its diversification or ending its dependence on the export of raw materials and the import of advanced technology. It was growth without development. This caused a contradiction in Russia’s structure between the military and economic forces; the label attached to the Soviet Union of being a giant with two legs, one powerful (military) and the other weak (economy), also applies to the Russian Federation.

Which brings us to American historian Paul Kennedy’s equation regarding the rise and fall of great powers: a strong economy that finances an army deployed abroad and a lack of financial ability to spend on overseas military operations both put great powers on the path towards failure. The continuation of the Russian-Western conflict and Moscow’s military involvement in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the possibility of its involvement in Iraq, will lead to the exhaustion of Russia's money supply and push it to the brink of bankruptcy.

This worries Russian citizens and has widened the gap between them and their leadership. The situation does not align with the doctrine and principles of the populist government and its sole hero Vladimir Putin, which depends on the enthusiasm of the Russian people and their ardent nationalism in order to mobilise behind him and protect him from their anger. He does so by promoting his description of the situation that the Russians have found themselves in as part of a Western conspiracy.

The Russian military intervention in Syria is based on opportunities and risks. Such opportunities include reinforcing Russia’s influence, limiting Washington’s ability to take unilateral action in the Middle East and other parts of the world, and forcing the US to negotiate with Moscow on regional and international issues, thus recognising Russia as an equal partner in global decision-making. However, it involves greater risks, as Washington does not accept Moscow as an equal or an influential player in the international arena. Indeed, it treats it like a junior partner there to serve the interests of the stronger party, according to the intersection theory spoken about by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor in his book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era.

Many analyses have predicted that domestic criticism will increase when soldiers start going home from Syria in body bags. Despite the fact that Russia is relying on air strikes to wear down the opposition in preparation for a ground attack by the Assad regime, its Iranian allies and the militias associated with Iran, in order to regain control of the territories lost in recent months and keep the opposition forces away from the coast, where the Russian naval base is located, this tactic is facing many obstacles. The first of these is the lack of effectiveness of the air strike in achieving decisive results in the asymmetric war. Another obstacle is the fact that Russia is linked to a weak ally — the regime — making it more difficult and placing a heavy burden on Moscow.

If the Syrian opposition forces succeed in avoiding Russia’s air strikes, and containing them, and then respond with powerful blows to the regime and its allies, they would have stopped the “tsar” from achieving quick results, such as reinforcing the regime’s position and pressuring the West to accept a trade-off. They would have a tactical victory in light of the unbalanced nature of the conflict and in accordance with the rule that, “The army is defeated when it is not victorious, while the resistance is victorious when it is not defeated.”

This could put the Russian leadership in a confrontation with public opinion at home, which is still suffering from Afghanistan syndrome; the people have a deep-seated fear of slipping in a foreign war.

Pushing Russia to withdraw from Syria without any positive results will reflect negatively on the “heroic” image of Putin and will lead to a decline in Moscow’s international role. That would push it back and force it to accept Washington’s conditions for a resolution of the crisis in Syria, the first of which is a new leadership in Damascus.

Russia’s involvement in such a war as Syria’s involves great risks for a country that is suffering from economic problems and is on the verge of bankruptcy, unable to pay its debts. Add to that the fact that it is suffering from social problems and existential concerns due to the demographic and religious structure of society, in order to achieve a near-impossible goal — a return to a world of bipolarity — and it is clear that Russia is reflecting a number of disparities in its strategic outlook.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 4 November, 2015.

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/22131-putins-aspirations-lead-russia-towards-disaster

Speculation: Did the West offer Russia economic incentives in return for Ukraine peace deal?

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/hariri-forestalls-arming-lebanese-military


It's interesting to see how such major deals for arms shipment were previously stalled but now going through right after the peace deal agreement for Ukraine. Could this be one of the agreements between the West and Russia?


From Source:

Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri did not make good on his promises to make the appropriations necessary to finalize the arms deal signed by the Lebanese army and the Russian government. The United States and Saudi Arabia support Hariri’s delay, while the army is in the midst of an ongoing confrontation with takfiri terrorist groups on the eastern border with Syria.

The Lebanese army should not be supplied with Russian weapons, though it desperately needs them for its battle against takfiri terrorist groups. This is a logical deduction from the arms deal’s hiatus, brought about by a failure to make the proposed $500 million appropriations. These appropriations were supposed to come out of a $1 billion grant from Saudi Arabia to the Lebanese army and security forces, the spending of which is being supervised by former Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

During a visit to Moscow last January, a large delegation of the Lebanese army leadership headed by the chief of staff, Brigadier General Walid Salman, put the finishing touches on an order of Russian weapons. They carefully determined the types of weapons they needed and signed the contracts. The weapons are ready to be transferred to Lebanon as soon as Hariri makes the appropriations, something he promised to do “within 48 hours.”

This raises questions about the reason behind Hariri’s position. Do the Saudis not want this number of weapons reaching the Lebanese army in its confrontation with terrorist groups in the hills along the eastern border, so as to keep the area a bleeding wound for Hezbollah? Or is it pressure by the US, which is opposed to the idea of diversifying weapons sources for the Lebanese army, in order to keep it dependent on US weapons exclusively?

Lebanon has a prior experience with the US blocking a Russian arms shipment to the army in 2010. Wikileaks documents revealed that the US ambassador in Beirut at the time, Michele Sison, worked with then-assistant secretary of state (current US ambassador to Beirut) David Hill to block the gift. She informed then-Lebanese Defense Minister Elias al-Murr of her country’s objection to the Russian deal which included 10 MiG-29 fighter aircrafts. Murr promised her to do what is necessary to “dilute this” and guarantee that “Lebanon would not accept this delivery before 2040.”

Saudi's drop in oil price didn't only harm Russia but also served the West to keep Turkeys economy going?

source: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21639583-ailing-economy-has-staged-partial-recovery-thanks-cheap-oil-saved

Key Points:

The sharp rise in interest rates needed to keep the lira from plunging naturally took a toll on the economy. The wilting currency, meanwhile, contributed to rising inflation. A further blow came with the upsurge in violence in neighbouring Iraq and Syria. Turkish exports to Iraq, its second-largest market after Germany, tumbled by 40%. And Turkey’s fraught peace talks with its own Kurds nearly collapsed threatening, in turn, a resumption of a 30-year rebel insurgency. The economic stability that has been the hallmark of the past 12 years of AK party rule seemed at risk.

Then the oil price slumped. That immediately relieved the pressure on the current account and on inflation. Turkey’s huge energy imports had been costing 6% of GDP a year. Thanks largely to lower fuel costs, the current-account deficit is set to shrink to around 5 % of GDP this year. Largely for the same reason, inflation will fall to 6.8%. Most bankers say the economy will grow by around 3.5% this year; the government talks of more than 4%.

Indeed, with other big emerging markets such as Russia and Brazil beset by troubles of their own, investors are giving Turkey another look. “A large volume of funds has started to flow into Turkey,” boasts Mehmet Simsek, the finance minister. The wobbly Kurdish peace talks seem to have been salvaged. AK is likely to win parliamentary elections due in June. Ali Babacan, the respected economy minister, is expected to stay on in some capacity.

Education is another worry. Only 1% of Turkish students have advanced computer skills, compared with 33% of their Polish peers. High-tech gear makes up a measly 2% of manufacturing exports (see chart); R&D spending totals only 0.9% of GDP. Yet Turkey’s Islamist president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seems interested chiefly in spreading the faith and reviving Ottoman Turkish influence.