Showing posts with label Funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Funding. Show all posts

Friday, 4 December 2015

Tommy Robinson Former EDL Leader, Claims Quilliam Paid Him To Quit Far-Right Group



Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/03/tommy-robinson-claims-quilliam-paid-him-to-leave-edl_n_8710834.html?1449244376&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067






Tommy Robinson claims he was paid thousand of pounds by the Quilliam Foundation to leave the English Defence League in a deal the anti-extremism think-tank coordinated so they could take "credit" for his resignation.

Quilliam has never previously acknowledged they paid Robinson to leave the group he formed in August 2009, or to work with them, and the 32-year-old has previously remained silent on the deal that was struck with the organisation he now says has "no credibility" and is "more despised by Muslims than I was".

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, unexpectedly announced he was quitting the EDL at a highly publicised press conference in October 2013, which he fronted alongside Quilliam director Maajid Nawaz, and his cousin, fellow defence league member, Kevin Carroll. Robinson, who is now aligned with Pegida UK, claims he made the decision to leave the EDL some time earlier, and it was unrelated to Quilliam.


Robinson told the Huffington Post UK that Quilliam, which was once said to receive millions of pounds of government funding, initially paid him £2,000 a month in a deal struck despite him expecting to be imprisoned the following month.

In November 2013 Robinson pleaded guilty to mortgage fraud, and two months later was sentenced to 18 months jail. Once inside, Robinson said Quilliam halved his payments - which were intended to cover "my wife's rent and help with basic bills, in return Tommy Robinson would be their poster boy".

Robinson claims he was on the Quilliam payroll for six months and received about £8,000. During that time, beyond attending the press conference, Robinson got involved in a few "Quilliam-orientated projects". One was a meeting in Luton between the EDL and a group of Muslims that was "chaos".

Quilliam on Friday acknowledged they paid Robinson, but refuted the nature of their financial agreement.

In a statement it said: "Quilliam never claimed to 'deradicalise' Tommy, nor 'reform' him, only that we facilitated his departure from the EDL. Quilliam cannot comment on Tommy's intentions (or "staging") for leaving the EDL, as it cannot read his mind. We simply helped him leave the EDL, rendering that group leaderless since.

"Tommy has never been a Quilliam member of staff, nor on our payroll, nor did he join Quilliam.

"Tommy was remunerated, as an external actor, after invoicing us for costs associated with outreach that he & Dr Usama Hassan did to Muslim communities after Tommy's departure from the EDL, in an attempt to reconcile Tommy with our Muslim communities. "

Robinson on Friday called Quilliam's response PR-Spin.

In his new book, Enemy Of The State, Robinson writes: "In October 2013 you might have seen a lot about Quilliam taking the credit for effectively converting me to the right side of the battle against extremism. I smiled to myself a lot about that.

"I dare say my motives were a bit muddled, although I honestly wanted to discover (if) Quilliam had something to offer but I'm not sure it has.

"Quilliam wanted to be seen to be facilitating my exit from the EDL and taking the credit for it. That was okay, I know how the world of public funding works. They have to show results from somewhere and I ticked the box of sorts."

Robinson wrote that Carroll thought Quilliam "were bullshit", but agreed to go along with the ruse. Robinson had first come into contact with Quilliam while filming a BBC documentary called 'When Tommy Met Mo'. In the documentary Robinson and Mohammed Ansar challenged each others views.





In hindsight Robinson opines: "I was using them, they were using me, but the bottom line from what I witnessed was that nothing truly productive was going to come out of it.

"I don't believe I'd sold my soul to them. I'd said I was going to try to be a part of the solution with them, as opposed to be part of the problem. Not everything works out the way you wished, even with the best intentions."

Later in the chapter on Quilliam Robinson gives the group who saved him "when I was in a desperate place", a serve, summing them up as "a handful of well meaning people unfortunately with little influence".

Writing in his book Robinson claims Nawaz was seen as a "apostate and a government stooge by some Muslim clerics", and noted, that the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for London's Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in the 2015 General Election had even been pictured getting a lap dance in a strip club.

Robinson writes: "The evidence of my eyes was that they were an organisation that was useful for the government to throw money at. It helped the politicians and establishment feel good about themselves and it fed the idea, the illusion, that they were making some kind of difference. I didn't see it, if they were."

In February 2014 Political Scrapbook reported that the Quilliam Foundation wanted taxpayer funded money to lure Robinson, and that the link-up between the unlikely allies was motivated by the groups poor financial position.

It obtained emails under the Freedom of Information Act which showed Nawaz talking to Carroll about Quilliam needing to acqire funding.






Nawaz opened the press conference announcing Quilliam's EDL coup with a lengthy speech, drawing parallels between his formative years and Robinson's - albeit the pair were on opposing sides of Islam.

Nawaz told how an attack on him in Essex, age 16, by Neo-Nazi paramilitaries known as Combat 18, had led to him joining radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, an association which later saw him jailed for six years in Egypt from December 2001.

Amnesty International, he told gathered journalists, adopted him as a "prisoner of conscious and reached out to me, which healed my heart". He continued: "And what I've said so often is where the heart leads, the mind can follow."

Nawaz then went on to say Robinson had "come to me and said he wants to reach out in a similar way".

Nawaz: "He (Robinson) wants a chance to prove to the world that he isn't happy with the association the EDL has with Neo-Nazis, neither is Kevin here to my left, and they want a chance to demonstrate they're not happy and to move forward positively."

The Quilliam founder said he chose to "invest his trust" in Robinson and Carroll, because the "alternative was to have the English Defence League still out there on the streets".

He said: "I don't know if that's an alternative many of us want, and I know many Muslims wouldn't want."

At the time Robinson said: "I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive."

"I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.”




In a statement Nawaz later said: “As well as being a very positive change for the United Kingdom, this is a very proud moment for Quilliam. This represents not a change but a continuation for us, as challenging extremism of all kinds forms the basis of our work.

"We have been able to show that Britain stands together against extremism regardless of political views and hope to continue supporting Tommy and Kevin in their journey to counter Islamism and neo-Nazi extremism.”

At that time Fiyaz Mughal, the director of the anti-Islamophobia monitoring group Tell MAMA, warned about the dangers of the union: "This will legitimise the man (Robinson). His views, which are on the fringes of British society, are now being allowed to enter the mainstream. It is the most dangerous when views like this come from mainstream commentators."




Once released from jail Robinson writes that he was visited by Quilliam's senior researcher, Usama Hasan, who wanted him to get involved with the Forgiveness Project, "the cheeky bastards".

Robinson: "It was all part of their pet Tommy Robinson project." He declined the offer saying he didn't need "forgiveness".

Robinson claims Hasan later approached him "concerned at some of the things he'd seen me tweeting", and worried he was about to return to the EDL. Robinson's twitter account reads like an anti-Islam news aggregator.

Robinson writes: "In Quilliam's case they needed to be seen to have some form of control over me, to have influence over the 'reformed' Tommy Robinson." He ignored the request, but never returned to the EDL.Robinson is however, now throwing his support behind Pegida UK and will help to "advise" the leadership of the new group, which will campaign for a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the UK, as well as place a ban on the building of mosques.

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

Hossam Bahgat - The US-funded journalist to push for Human Rights and Democracy in Egypt



Hossam Bahgat, a name that has been mentioned quite a few times over the past month or so. The Egyptian journalist who has been detained by Egyptian authorities and claimed to have suffered detention and torture. Although it is horrendous for anyone to have suffered such, we need to look deeper into why the media is focusing on a single journalist in Egypt that has suffered when hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members have not only been tortured but murdered.

It doesn't take long to find that Hossam Bahgat is funded by the terrorist sponsor George Soros Foundation, Open Society. He sits neatly on the advisory board under the Open Society Justice Initiative. Soros has built a global empire of networked nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly promoting "human rights," "freedom," "democracy," and "transparency." His Open Society Institute funds amongst many others, Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch. In reality these NGOs constitute a modern day network of imperial administrators, undermining national governments around the world and replacing them with a homogeneous "civil society" that interlocks with "international institutions" run from and on behalf of Wall Street and London. And contrary to popular belief, Soros has built this empire, not against "conservative" ambitions, but with their full cooperation.

It is difficult to find a cause Soros' Open Society Institute supports that is not also funded, directed, and backed by the US State Department-funded, Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

It would be almost four months after the beginning of the so-called "Arab Spring" before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated:

"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "

George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations.

In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported:


"It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month.

These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED fundedEgyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground."

So why all this commotion regarding Hossam Bahgat's detention? It would seem as though the Americans are trying to gain Hossam some credibility amongst the public. Preparing him for a key role in further democratising Egypt in the future? He's certainly gaining credibility amongst the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'll let you join the dots... 

Monday, 7 September 2015

How the US Can Stop ISIS Without Setting Foot in Syria

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/how-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting.html

How the US Can Stop ISIS Without Setting Foot in Syria

September 1, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Increasingly difficult to cover-up or spin, it is becoming apparent even in Western media coverage that the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) is not sustaining its fighting capacity from within Iraq or Syria, but rather through supply lines that lead to and from adjacent nations. These nations include Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and most obviously, NATO-member Turkey.



It was in Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW)'s report, "'IS' supply channels through Turkey," that hundreds of trucks destined for ISIS held territory were videotaped waiting at Oncupinar, Turkey to cross over into Syria with apparently no oversight by the Turkish government. Later, TIME magazine would admit ISIS' dependence on the Syrian town of Tal Abyad, just across the border from Turkey, for supplies and the significance of its loss to Kurdish fighters in sustaining their fighting capacity both at the border and beyond.

AP's June 2015 report, "Kurds move to cut off ISIS supply lines in Syria," would state:
Syrian Kurdish fighters closed in on the outskirts of a strategic Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-held town on the Turkish border Sunday, Kurdish officials and an activist group said, potentially cutting off a key supply line for the extremists' nearby de facto capital.  
Taking Tal Abyad, some 50 miles from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) stronghold of Raqqa, would mean the group wouldn't have a direct route to bring in new foreign militants or supplies. The Kurdish advance, coming under the cover of intense U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in the area, also would link their two fronts and put even more pressure on Raqqa as Iraqi forces struggle to contain the group in their country.
And while US airstrikes are credited for Kurdish advances against ISIS, one wonders why the US, whose military including a US airbase at Incirlik, Turkey and US special forces as well as the CIA are operating along and across the Syrian border in Turkey - hasn't done more to interdict ISIS supply lines beforethey reach Syria and awaiting terrorists.

The Kurds and Syria's military both realize the importance of stemming terrorist armies within Syria by cutting them off from their supplies at Syria's borders. However, both the Kurds and Syrian forces are increasingly limited from securing these borders due to an ever-expanding "safe haven" the US and its regional allies are carving out of Syrian territory. Turkey and Israel have both attacked Syrian forces in these "safe havens" creating a virtual sanctuary for Al Qaeda affiliates including Al Nusra and ISIS.

Efforts to "assist" the Kurds appear only to have been a pretext to violate Syrian airspace first, then Syrian territory on the ground second. America's meager "Division 30" of less than 60 fighters trained in Turkey then sent to fight the thousands upon thousands of terrorists the US and its allies have been arming, training, and sending over Syria's borders for years was yet another attempt to make ISIS and Al Nusra's gains appear a result of Western folly rather than of Western design.

How the West Can Stop ISIS Without Setting Foot in Syria 

An old military maxim states: "an army marches on its stomach." Logic dictates that an army with empty stomachs is unable to march. Napoleon Bonaparte who is credited with this quote, found out first hand just how true these words were when his army found itself deep within Russia without supplies, leading to its ultimate and catastrophic defeat.

Likewise, ISIS' fighting capacity depends entirely on its supply lines. Cutting these supply lines will lead to its inevitable defeat. For the United States, who is either allied with or has troops operating in all nations bordering Syria, cutting ISIS' supply lines would be a simple matter - that is - if the United States was truly interested in defeating ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates.

While the United States has assisted Turkey in erecting missile defenses along its border with Syria in order to create a defacto no-fly-zone providing Al Nusra and ISIS with an invaluable sanctuary, little to no effort has been spent in increasing border security - specifically the searching for and interdiction of terrorist fighters, weapons, and other supplies. As German DW's report illustrated, it appears Turkey's borders are not only dangerously wide open, but intentionally so, with little or no effort at all by Turkey to stem the torrent of obvious ISIS supply convoys from passing through.

DW would likely videotape a similar situation unfolding in Jordan near its border with Syria, close to Syrian cities like Daraa which have become battle-torn as Syrian forces desperately try to stem the torrent of fighters and weapons flowing over the borders there, aimed ultimately at Damascus.

The US Can Stop ISIS in One Month... If it Wanted

By cutting off ISIS from its money, supplies, additional fighters, weapons, and essential equipment, it would quickly be overwhelmed by Syrian and Iraqi forces. Without cash to pay fighters, and without new fighters to replace those lost in fighting, morale would quickly falter. Without a constant torrent of weapons, ammunition, and fuel, ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates would quickly lose their tactical capabilities. Fighters unable to flee would be encircled and destroyed as has happened deep within Syria's interior where Syrian forces have been able to cut supply lines to key cities and starve out terrorist armies.

Syria is intentionally prevented from securing its borders through an increasingly overt "buffer zone" or "safe haven" the US and its regional allies are creating for the purpose of sheltering clearly non-existent "moderate rebels." What these "safe havens" are in actuality doing, is ensuring ISIS' supply lines remain intact. With the Kurds - the only effective force near the Turkish-Syrian border able to threaten ISIS' supply lines - now being attacked by Turkish forces directly, what little obstacles supplies had in reaching ISIS through Turkey is being swiftly negated.

The US and its allies could easily increase security along Syria's borders and permanently cut ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates supply lines without having to enter Syrian airspace or cross onto Syrian soil. Just as easily as the US built a line of missile defenses facing Syria, it could create border checkpoints and patrols within Turkey to interdict and effectively stem all weapons and fighters flowing to ISIS. It could, but it intentionally doesn't.



The implications are obvious. ISIS is both a creation and intentional perpetuation of US foreign policy. Just as the US so many years ago colluded with Saudi Arabia in the creation of Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan in the first place, it to this day colludes with its regional allies to use Al Qaeda and its various rebrandings - including ISIS - to fight wars Western troops cannot fight. This includes dividing and destroying Syria - the overtly stated, true objective of US policymakers.

Could Syria and its allies create their own "buffer zone" in northern Syria? Could international troops be brought in, with the inclusion of UN observers to secure the Syrian border and put in check attempts by both Turkey and the US to engage Syrian and Kurdish fighters attempting to restore order there?

The incremental strategy of carving out northern Syria, claiming to shelter "moderate rebels" while in reality securing further ISIS' supply lines and providing them an increasingly unassailable safe haven from which to launch operations deeper into Syria, is inching along and will inevitably pay off at the expense of Syrian territorial integrity, stability, and perhaps even its existence as a functioning state if no measures are taken to counter this conspiracy.

The basics of logistics and the simple fact that the US can both fight and defeat ISIS by simply securing Turkey and Jordan's borders must be repeatedly brought up by non-Western media and diplomatic circles - highlighting the fact that Syria's conflict is one of foreign invasion, not civil war. The conflict can be brought to an end, along with all the horrors associated with it, by simply checking ISIS' bags at the Turkish border. If the US and Turkey refuse to do this, someone must check them on the other side, someone the US and Turks may hesitate to attack as they have the Syrians and Kurds.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.   

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

It is no surprise that the Gulf countries are safe from the terror the West have created in the Middle East

Source:http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/08/17/425155/US-protests-Saudi-Arabia-tyrannical-monarchies-

The US government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to defend Saudi Arabia and other “tyrannical monarchies” in the Persian Gulf region, a Saudi scholar in Washington says.
“The United States has been spending $255 billion a year since the 1970s, an average of $255 billion a year to protect the [Persian] Gulf monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain,” said Ali al-Ahmed, a critic of the Saudi monarchy.
“This amount of money makes up 40 percent of the annual American defense budget and it’s greater than the combined budgets of the states of California and Florida,” said al-Ahmed, the founder and director of the Institute for [Persian] Gulf Affairs, an independent think tank in Washington, DC.
“I think it’s really a way for America and the American people to stand against their government policy of supporting the tyrannical and absolute monarchies in the [Persian] Gulf countries,” he added.
The scholar made the comments after US presidential candidate Donald Trump blasted Riyadh for "ripping off" the US, saying the regime wouldn’t exist without US assistance.
In an interview with NBC News on Sunday, the Republican said Saudis are making “a billion dollars a day” because of the US assistance and called on Riyadh to share its vast oil wealth with Washington in exchange for the American favors.
“Saudi Arabia, if it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t be here,” Trump said. “They wouldn’t exist.”
Trump suggested that the United States should consider ditching Riyadh because Washington is increasingly getting less dependent on the Saudi Arabian oil.

Wednesday, 10 June 2015

Aung San Suu Kyi the American project for democratising Burma

Aung San Suu Kyi

-          Leader of the National League for Democracy political party
-          Under house-arrest for 15 years and gaining prominence as world’s most prominent political prisoner.
-          Presented with the Congressional Gold Medal, which is, along with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.
-          Religion: Buddhist

Events that prove that San Suu Kyi has western backing

In 1996 San Suu Kyi was first detained and imprisoned and shortly after in the same year the U.S. created a broadcasting media under the name of ‘Radio Free Asia’ to broadcast in East Asia, a part of the Broadcasting Board of Governors that is a United States government agency and receives full funding from U.S budget. This radio station is seen as a staunch supporter of San Suu Kyi and helped build her reputation throughout her 15 years in prison to become the world’s most famous political prisoner. It is funded by U.S. and located in Washington – one of many ways America uses the media to push its political aims.
Her arrest and subsequent trial received worldwide condemnation by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Security Council and Western governments.
In 2006 a Washington based organisation called ‘Freedom Now’ which mainly focuses on releasing democratic activists, i.e. those activists that America has placed in certain countries to push reforms and democracy, had enlisted San Suu Kyi as their goal to release from prison.

Freedom Campaign, which is a joint venture between the Human Rights Action Center and U.S. Campaign for Burma have events planned to stage huge concerts with well-known talents such as Black-Eyed Peas and Damien Rice to raise awareness about San Suu Kyi as well as gain more popularity for democratic alternatives to military rule. They have also released a documentary film ‘Freedom from Fear’ that will be secretly filmed in Burma via satellite – this movie is focusing on the life of San Suu Kyi.
U.S. Campaign for Burma is a democracy movement in Burma that evolved out of the ‘Free Burma Coalition’ that also was established in the U.S. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Its aims changed slightly in 2008 to be primarily focused on ending military rule in Burma for a democratic rule under San Suu Kyi. Yet another movement directly funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society George Soros Foundation. One of its few missions states “To strengthen the position of the rightful leaders of Burma, 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratically elected National League for Democracy, by cutting the political and economic lifelines of the ruling military junta”
Burma Campaign UK is a UK based NGO that has similar aims to the U.S. Campaign for Burma and has been vocal in the issue of Rohingyan Muslims persecution. It seems from the apparent that they are using the pretext of inequality to push an all-inclusive democratic Burma representing the people, i.e. participatory democracy. However San Suu Kyi has remained silent on the issue of Burmese Muslims genocide and ethnic cleansing – mainly due to the credibility the party would lose from the Buddhist majority.

U.S. President Barack Obama personally advocated the release of all political prisoners, especially Aung San Suu Kyi, during the US-ASEAN Summit of 2009.
In a personal letter to Suu Kyi, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown cautioned the Burmese government of the potential consequences of rigging elections as "condemning Burma to more years of diplomatic isolation and economic stagnation"

On 21 December 2011, Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (a known U.S. agent backed and funded by the West) met Suu Kyi in Yangoon. Shinawatra regime have been known to have conducted mass murder and genocide in Thailand but the U.S. have never bat an eyelid on the issue, but rather they have expressed concern o Shinawatra leader Yingluck’s removal from power in 2014.

The link between U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’ Open Society and Burma

In the DFID (Department for International Development) policy review of Burma titled ‘Failing the People of Burma’[1] it states:

“The restoration of democracy in Burma is a priority U.S. policy objective in Southeast Asia. To achieve this objective, the United States has consistently supported democracy activists and their efforts both inside and outside Burma…Addressing these needs requires flexibility and creativity. Despite the challenges that have arisen, United States Embassies Rangoon and Bangkok as well as Consulate General Chiang Mai are fully engaged in pro-democracy efforts. The United States also supports organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities. U.S.-based broadcasters supply news and information to the Burmese people (i.e. Radio Free Asia), who lack a free press. U.S. programs also fund scholarships for Burmese who represent the future of Burma”

It goes on to specifically state San Suu Kyi as a specific aim for these broadcasting services:
“RFA/VOA In addition to programs supported by Burma earmark funding, the United States also continues to fund multimedia broadcasting services for the Burmese people independent of the influence of the military junta in Rangoon. Both Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) have Burmese services. VOA broadcasts a 30-minute mix of international news and information three times a day. RFA broadcasts news and information about Burma two hours a day. VOA and RFA websites also contain audio and text material in Burmese and English. For example, VOA's October 10, 2003 editorial, "Release Aung San Suu Kyi" is prominently featured in the Burmese section of VOAnews.com. RFA's website makes available audio versions of 16 Aung San Suu Kyi's speeches from May 27 and 29, 2003. U.S. international broadcasting provides crucial information to a population denied the benefits of freedom of information by its government. Broadcasts reach a broad spectrum of society and a broad swathe of the country, influencing Burmese decision-makers and offering support to future democratic leaders. Anecdotal evidence indicates that government officials listen to these broadcasts frequently…The State Department provided $150,000 in FY 2001/02 funds to provide scholarships to young Burmese through Prospect Burma, a partner organization with close ties to Aung San Suu Kyi”



Link between San Suu Kyi and Ashin Wirathu, the lead Buddhist that is ordering the genocide of Muslims in Burma

The “Saffron Revolution” movements in Burma were historically aimed at calling for greater freedom from the oppressive military junta regimes in both Thailand and Burma with San Suu Kyi being the figurehead for the movement. However the most recent rally called for the expulsion of Muslims, often referred to as ‘Kalars’ (Blacks) or ‘Bengali’. The fact they came to the streets to deny thousands of Muslims to be represented as Burmese is quite obvious that the aim of the “Saffron” movements is aimed at harming the Muslims and not for the greater ‘freedom’, which is a flawed ideal in itself.

Ashin Wirathu, also known as the "Buddhist Bin Laden," led Aung San Suu Kyi's "Saffron Revolution" in 2007 and his followers regularly fill the ranks of street mobs organized in support of her political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). Both Suu Kyi's NLD and her "Saffron" mobs, are fully funded, backed, protected by, and in absolute servile obedience to both US and British special interests.

San Suu Kyi remains silent on her links with the Buddhist extremist Wirathu but their alliance is quite clear. Washington Post[2] reported on the state of Sittwe where the Muslims have been persecuted the most:

“Often these attacks have been spearheaded by the same orange-robed monks who led a series of demonstrations against the junta in 2007, known as the "Saffron Revolution". A warped and violent version of Buddhism has grasped hold of many monasteries in Burma, with hate-speech directed against Muslims across the country, and particularly the Rohingya. Mosques have been attacked, villages set on fire and thousands chased from their homes. Massacres have leapt from village to village in Rakhine State, with machetes the weapon of choice.”

A video that proves that the authorities in Burma are allowing the ethnic cleansing of Muslims is viral, it shows “Burmese police officers stand by as an already bruised and bleeding middle-aged Muslim man is tied by his ankles behind a motorbike by Buddhist youths. There is cheering as the bike roars off down the rock-strewn road, flaying skin from the bouncing body as it goes.” Now almost a quarter of a million Rohingya have been rounded up into concentration camps along Rakhine's low-lying coastline.
Wirathu wears a deep-blue tattoo of a peacock on his inner arm - symbol of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League For Democracy party.

Summary

Events in Burma may not be directly in line with the Greater Middle East Initiative but it is still important in terms of the persecution of Muslims and the shedding of the Ummah’s blood. This written piece aims to provide tangible facts to the situation in Burma and how Western NGO’s that the Muslims consider as ‘support’ are in fact funding the downfall of Islam. National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society are the biggest players in this field and has funded huge pro-democratic developments within the Middle East, such as the April 6th movement and other movements during the Arab spring. These are hard facts and by understanding how Western democracy funding organisations distribute its ‘support’ we can ultimately understand its venom as well as identify those groups, movements and parties that are Western led.

Monday, 1 June 2015

So convenient. ISIS was gifted 2300 Humvees by the West


Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/18967-isis-captured-2300-armoured-vehicles-from-iraqi-army

Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armoured vehicles to the Islamic State in Mosul last summer, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi revealed.

"In the collapse of Mosul, we lost a lot of weapons. We lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul alone," Al-Abadi said, pointing out that "several Russian and American maintenance companies and contractors left the country because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq."

Last year, the US State Department approved the sale of 1,000 Humvees with increased armour, machine guns, grenade launchers, other gear and support, estimated to cost $579 million.

Source: http://rt.com/news/263769-iraq-isis-humvees-weapons/
Meanwhile the US approved new arms deliveries to the Iraqis last December to replenish the stock ransacked by IS. One contract allows the sale of 175 heavy M1A1 Abarams worth $12.4 billion, while another approves the delivery of 1,000 Humvees, equipped with M2.50 caliber machine guns and MK-19 40mm grenade launchers.
They are exactly the types of weapons IS used to gain vast amount of territory both in Iraq and northern Syria. In fact, the first use of US-Humvees on Syrian territory was reported last year shortly after Mosul has fallen to jihadists.

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Who is Ashin Wirathu?


"By all appearances, Wirathu seems an unlikely leader of sectarian violence. He speaks in soft, measured tones, clasping his hands thoughtfully. Like all Burmese Buddhist monks, his head is shaved and he is draped in a simple saffron robe. He teaches at a quiet and dimly lit monastery in Mandalay where monks kneel in study or prayer and flowers and images of religious figures decorate the walls. It’s every bit the Western stereotype of Buddhist tranquility." - Washington Post
He is the leader of the attacks upon the Muslims of Burma with his 'Saffron' mobs that regularly take to the streets to persecute the Muslims or organise events that are only aimed to foment violence.
“If we do not protect our own people we will become weak, and we will face more mass killings of this kind when they (the Muslims) grow to outnumber us.” - Wirathu speaking to BBC.
“Muslims are only well behaved when they are weak,” he adds, contemplating another poster. “When they are strong they are like a wolf or a jackal, in large packs they hunt down other animals.”
"Despite the fact that many Rohingya have been in the country for generations, the Burmese government considers them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh — sectarians like Wirathu often refer to them derogatorily as “Bengalis.” The Rohingya have been denied Burmese citizenship since 1982." - Washington Post
The most interesting point to note is that pro-American democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi has offered only muted criticism of the violence perpetrated by the Saffron mobs
Wirathu, also known as the "Buddhist Bin Laden," led Aung San Suu Kyi's "Saffron Revolution" in 2007 and his followers regularly fill the ranks of street mobs organized in support of her political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). Both Suu Kyi's NLD and her "Saffron" mobs, are fully funded, backed, protected by, and in absolute servile obedience to both US and British special interests.
A 2006 36-page document out of the "Burma Campaign UK" explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi's image and her "movement."
The most telling information begins on page 14 of 36 of the report's PDF file. Titled, "Failing the People of Burma?" the report enumerates the vast resources the West has invested in building a "pro-democracy" movement, and argues that even more support be given to initiate a "transition" in Myanmar. - LandDestroyer
The report details the specifics of each organisation involved including the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), US State Department-run Radio Free Asia (RFA),Voice of America (VOA), George Soros Foundation 'Open Society' and many more US funded and led organisations.

Friday, 15 May 2015

2014 U.S. Islamic World Forum Speech by Anne Patterson

Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2014/06/09-2014-us-islamic-world-forum/patterson-remarks.pdf


Remarks as Delivered by
Ambassador Anne W. Patterson
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
U.S. – Islamic World Forum
Doha, Qatar
Monday, June 9, 2014

Thank you, Ted, for your kind introduction and thanks to our friends at Brookings for inviting me to speak today.

Let me recognize Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa al Thani and Foreign Minister Dr. Khalid bin Mohammed Al Attiyah: I am very glad to be here today with you to bring best regards from Secretary Kerry. I know the Secretary of State is in very constant contact with Foreign Minister Attiyah, and keeps his number on his own cell phone.

Your Excellencies, Bujar Nishani, President of Albania and Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, President of Mali, I was very pleased to meet you here today.

Ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen:
I want to begin by expressing the gratitude of the United States to the Amir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and his government for their diplomatic efforts that made it possible to free U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from years of captivity with the Taliban. I was the U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan when Sgt. Bergdahl was taken prisoner and am very familiar with this case and the strong commitment of our leadership to securing his freedom. As the mother of two sons who served, or are serving, in the U.S. military, I also took great personal comfort in seeing, first hand, that my government would do everything possible to bring back our servicemen and women to their families. The deal could not have been achieved without the Government of Qatar’s diplomatic good offices and its firm commitment to securing the five individuals after their transfer from the Guantanamo Bay facility.

I understand that the first plenary session will consider the future of the U.S. role in the region. I look forward to this discussion, as we prepare for significant changes in the next year. As you are likely aware, last month, President Barack Obama announced the plan that will bring to an end the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, a war that has gone on for 12 years. The United States has lost 6,812 lives and suffered 52,032 wounded in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars have already cost the American people some $1.3 trillion dollars, although some analysts believe the final cost will be far greater.

As a result, it won’t surprise you that there is an active debate underway in the United States about the way we engage with the world and should engage in the future. Many of our international friends are having a parallel conversation along these lines. As Americans and Europeans observed the D-Day anniversary, an enduring symbol of commitment to freedom, it was jarring to see a somewhat tattered eagle on The Economist’s cover, asking whether America would fight for anything, anymore.



In Europe and in this vitally important region, such questions make little sense. The United States is a leading member of NATO – a fact underscored by the President last week in Warsaw – and has treaty obligations to defend our allies. We continue to maintain the world’s largest defense budget.

Similar questions have been raised by some in this neighborhood about the U.S. commitment to this region. However, U.S. defense cooperation with the countries of this region has never been stronger; in fact, it has dramatically expanded in recent years. The U.S. has 35, 000 military personnel in the Gulf region. I visited the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet a few weeks ago in Bahrain, where we station about 7,000 personnel. The UAE is the Fleet’s most frequent port of call as it patrols the Gulf. Our military is deployed with our most advanced fighter aircraft and a wide array of missile defense capabilities in this region.

President Obama came to Saudi Arabia recently to directly reaffirm our commitment to regional security and partnership, and he has met many regional leaders at the White House. In addition to phone calls and meetings by senior civilians and military personnel, we are linked by high-level forums: the U.S. – GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum at the Foreign Minister level and its counterpart, the U.S. – GCC Defense Ministerial. Our diplomatic engagement in the region is as broad as it is deep. Our diplomats meet daily with government officials and civil society and our senior leadership, particularly the Secretary, is in constant contact with his counterparts in the region. Despite increased security concerns, U.S. missions abroad will continue to do the important work of building ties and forging common purpose. The United States recognizes that there can be no durable solution to the range of challenges facing the region without the vital engagement of countries of the Gulf.

The U.S. is committed to maintaining the world’s largest and best-equipped military. And the President was clear in his recent West Point speech when he said that “the United States will use military force, unilaterally, if necessary, when our core interests demand it – when our people are threatened; when our livelihood is at stake; or when the security of our allies is in danger.” A robust economic and diplomatic engagement will also remain a cornerstone of our relations in the Middle East.

As we look around the region, however, we see important diplomatic and security challenges that will require more tailored strategies if we are to succeed. So it is important to take a clear-eyed look at our priorities and how all of us in the region can work together to preserve stability and build a better future. The United States seeks to make the world more secure by helping our allies and friends defend their national security interests and by intensifying our partnership. This is an approach that has been evolving over the years: some of the greatest dangers now arise from efforts by violent extremists operating in areas where borders and territory cannot be defended by national governments.

To assure their defenses, we have provided to our partners in this region some of the world’s best military equipment. Saudi Arabia recently purchased 72 of the advanced F-15 aircraft. The UAE is upgrading and expanding its F-16 fleet. Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait are acquiring some of the world’s most sophisticated missile defense systems.



But having the best equipment available is not nearly enough. We are moving to support regional collective defense through the Gulf Cooperation Council. We maintain a Combined Air Operations Center here in Qatar that monitors the skies over the region. We are hoping that the GCC will establish an Air Defense Chiefs Conference as its primary military forum for regional air and missile defense policy. We would like to see improved security cooperation in the Straits of Hormuz through the GCC Operations Center, once it is operational. We believe the GCC should assume and maintain command of the Combined Maritime Force’s Gulf operations, with a naval chief’s conference to coordinate policy. From the UAE and Qatar’s contributions to the no-fly zone of Libya, to the GCC participation in counter-piracy operations in the Arabian Sea, we are beginning to see what our enhanced security partnership can achieve as Gulf countries are becoming increasingly robust military partners.

Although terrorism which emerged from this region has been effectively ended as a unified force in Afghanistan, various splinter groups and factions still seek to undermine and overthrow regional governments. But we have seen the consequences of permitting violent extremists to establish safe havens or to take over entire nations, and the enormous cost of turning back the tide.

In his recent speech at West Point, President Obama pointed to violent extremist elements as the greatest threat to the United States and to our interests and partners. He committed the United States to work in partnership with countries across the globe as a network or web of allies to confront extremist violence. Nowhere is this more true than Syria and Iraq. I believe we can do much together to contain and roll back the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s aspirations to create a terrorist state in western Iraq and eastern Syria. ISIL draws on the widespread anger in the region and beyond over the Asad regime’s brutal repression of its people -- repression supported by Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. To defeat ISIL, the United States and the countries of the region need to work in concert -- and overcome some differences -- to develop effective policies and durable solutions to this dangerous threat.

Counter terrorism strategies sometimes require the use of military power, but we must also use other tools, including diplomacy and development to take on the appeal that terrorists still can have for angry, disenfranchised and unemployed young people. And as allies, we need to strengthen our business and people-to-people ties.

The second, related challenge is job creation. This region has a very large cohort of young people who are driving change with their aspirations for better lives. But there will be no stability in this region until the large numbers of unemployed young men can find good jobs – the kinds of opportunities that young people everywhere seek. Observers of the recent Egyptian election noted that they saw very few young men at the polls, another indicator of the disillusionment and frustration with the political process that we see across the entire region. Improving the prospects of young people across the region will require increased investment, more open markets, more intra-regional trade, and, critically, more cooperation among the Gulf countries and Europe and the United States.

This cooperation will be crucial to finding ways to help less prosperous Arab countries develop productive, job creating investments. Some work has been done to synchronize our overall economic approach to the region, but not nearly enough. The Gulf countries will continue to be



vulnerable as less prosperous neighbors face stagnant economies and declining living standards. On our part, we in developed countries need to open our markets just as we work closely with our business communities to invest in the region, since overseas markets offer our companies the greatest opportunities for growth and profit.

Prosperity will require widespread reform of Arab economies to depend less on subsidies, to slow the growth in public employment, and to curb energy demand. Secretary Kerry has worked hard to lay the basis for an improved Palestinian economy predominantly using the private sector but engaging government tools selectively. This innovative plan, which is private sector driven, may provide a model for other countries in the region and will be greatly strengthened by support from the Gulf States.

Higher education is a prime area for increased cooperation, because both in the Arab world and in the United States costly, but advanced education raises the expectations of young people for a better life -- expectations thwarted when they cannot find jobs. The United States has the best universities in the world and some of these institutions are now operating in the Middle East. And U.S. degree programs are attracting growing numbers of people from across the region.

There are currently 80,000 Saudi students in the U.S., a number poised to increase to over 100,000 next year, representing an investment of about $4 billion by the Saudi government. This stake in human capital will transform Saudi society – and it will develop deep partnerships and business ties for Saudi Arabia with a new generation of Americans. Countries in this region also need to cooperate more on developing specialized high schools, vocational training, and expertise in math and science, both for girls and boys. Our cooperation in education and in important academic and professional exchanges will help build stronger ties between our people and will dispel misunderstandings.

And then finally, political stability in the region will be a significant challenge. The United States is well aware that there are deep differences among our friends in this region about the future of Islamist politics and we understand the need for new thinking to address the intensity and depth of sectarian issues that threaten regional peace. It will be an important theme of discussion at this conference. We have seen Islamist groups prosper when they provide services that governments have been unable to provide and when there has been a lack of political space for other political movements.

Some people in this region conflate Islamists with terrorists and desire to eliminate the Islamists entirely from the political scene. Our difficult fight against violent extremists is made more complicated by this viewpoint. The need for compromise is underscored by political experience in the Arab world as well as our own. It will take concerted leadership on the part of political leaders, governments, religious figures and civil society – leadership that must come from people here in this region.

I want to mention some U.S. diplomatic undertakings that are underway in the region – addressing challenges that also require our shared efforts if we are to build a region of peace and stability. I know that most of you have been following these issues closely. Let me offer a few thoughts.



The United States desires better relations with Iran. We want to believe President Rouhani’s efforts to improve relations with the West are both sincere and sustainable within Iran’s political structure. Our differences with Iran go far beyond the nuclear issue, yet in clear recognition of the existential threat that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses to this region and to the United States we are working together with the P5+1 to test Iran’s intentions.

We have provided temporary, limited and reversible sanctions relief in exchange for a partial rollback of Iran’s nuclear program as a demonstration of our sincerity and desire to complete an agreement. We have been keeping regional governments closely and regularly briefed throughout the process. I cannot say that these negotiations will succeed, but we need to seek a diplomatic solution to a dangerous situation.

We believe that efforts to address regional challenges will be strengthened by a close partnership with Egypt. We look forward to working with President Al-Sisi and his government to advance our strategic partnership and our many shared interests. A strong, stable and economically successful Egypt is good for the region and good for the United States. We continue to urge that the Egyptian government follow through on its commitment to lead an inclusive transition to a democracy that respects the universal rights of all its citizens, including the right to peacefully dissent, and an open economy that provides opportunities for growth and development.

The Asad regime, which terrorizes and slaughters its own people and drives them into exile, has given new life to violent extremism in this region. While it has had some battlefield successes, the regime will not be able to end the civil uprising through the use of force and repression. Nor will it gain legitimacy from its recent bogus election. We will continue to work with our London 11 partners toward a political solution that will facilitate Syria’s transition. In his recent West Point address, President Obama underscored our desire to support the moderate Syrian opposition, which offers the best alternative to both the regime and the terrorists. He noted that we will coordinate with our partners and allies to increase that support. The President also intends to increase our assistance to Syria’s neighbors to deal with the refugees and terrorist spillover from the conflict. But this crisis requires all of us to work together, putting our partnership into practice. We need to cut off the flow of resources and fighters from this region to ISIL and other extremist groups – and we will need to expand security cooperation to strengthen defenses and borders.

The United States remains the largest donor to the international humanitarian effort for the Syrian people. Last week, the Secretary of State Kerry visited Lebanon, which has been deeply affected by the Syrian crisis, where he announced an additional $290 million in humanitarian assistance, bringing the U.S. total to over $2 billion.

The Middle East Peace negotiations are currently in a period of pause as Israel and the Palestinians reflect on the next steps necessary to secure the peace agreement that has eluded them for so many decades. Secretary of State Kerry expended extraordinary efforts to restart and to shepherd these talks; and we are grateful that the Brookings Institution loaned Ambassador Martin Indyk back to the State Department to work closely with both parties. I want to acknowledge the support for these talks provided by so many of the region’s leaders, including incentives for the parties to reach a solution. Regrettably, both sides have taken steps that have brought the talks to the current pause. The United States will not – and cannot – give up trying to achieve a just and lasting peace to the region.

In conclusion I’ll say that although the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan is coming to an end, we see much productive work ahead – not just on shared security concerns, but also on building of stronger economic, political, and cultural ties. Achieving these goals will depend heavily on our partnerships in the region and require expanded cooperation and intensive consultation.
This forum is an opportunity to propose and develop solutions to the challenges we face and I look forward to a very fruitful discussion.

President Obama has spoken often about America’s desire to build a new relationship with the countries of the region, based on mutual respect, cooperation and economic development. We have done much in recent years to deepen our business and commercial relations, and the surge of Arab students currently entering U.S. universities will do much to broaden people-to-people engagement – and also to share new skills in technology and entrepreneurship. But much more can be done, in part, because we believe that every society – regardless of its religious or cultural traditions – benefits from extending universal rights to all men and women.

The Middle East has entered a new era, one in which the demands of people for greater access to legitimate political power and economic opportunity are growing. These demands will not go away. We are looking for ways to align ourselves more effectively, politically and economically, with the Middle East as a long-term partner for peace and economic growth.
Thank you very much.