The Attack in Nice - Think Rationally not Emotionally

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/15/the-attack-in-nice-think-rationally-not-emotionally/

﷽

The truck attack in Nice will no doubt be linked to "Islamic Extremism" in the first 24 hours before the truth is actually revealed. Let's be clear, the attack is horrific and in no way affirmed by Islam or the Muslims - but leaving emotion to the side we must understand the outcomes of such attacks and the similar ones leading up to this.

If you follow the media trend on such attacks you will see that within the first 24 hours of the attack, the attackers identity will be revealed as a Muslim and that he most likely has links to ISIS or another terrorist/militia group. The government will announce their commitment to fighting terrorism and in effect get the public opinion on their side for further military action in the Middle East. However, the following hours after the first 24 hours you will find that the attackers true identity will be revealed, usually a deranged psychopath that would be easily misled or goaded into doing such attacks. You will find that the official narrative is weak and contradictions begin to appear from the over exaggerated initial reports. But it's too late, by this time the entire world has linked this attack to Islam and Muslims, and 99% of the population have switched off the news and moved onto more "important" matters in their life. The 1% that haven't are you, the one reading this article right now. That 1% doesn't really matter now as they have no power or voice.

This was the case with the San Bernardino shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, and now this one and many others before.

We understand that these attacks most likely were carried out, putting conspiracy theories aside. And even if they didn't happen it doesn't make the outcome null and void because the whole world believed it to have happened in the way the media has portrayed. What we have to understand is the outcome of such attacks.

1. It sways public opinion against Islam and Muslims further isolating them.
2. It supports the idea of further military intervention by European States, through NATO, of the Muslim world.
3. It amplifies the voice of those on the far right, i'm sure Marie Le Pen is loving this.
4. It endorses the idea of an 'extremist watchlist' which has been an issue of contention in many countries that say it is against ones freedoms. This attacker was known by the police but not on the official 'watchlist' so therefore he "wasn't tracked".

Finally, let us also remember the millions that have died through the wars that the Western nations committed and the Muslims dying in Kashmir right now as we speak that have no voice or media attention, and the Muslims in Burma that are persecuted to the point of extinction, and the 14,000 Muslims arrested in Bangladesh just because they oppose the government.

There are many Muslims dying right now due to their involvement in our lands and will continue to die until we wake up and do something to help.

#DontBeFooled

For those who thought Iran was not under the will of America

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/11/for-those-who-thought-iran-was-not-under-the-will-of-america/

﷽

There are many who believe Iran have held firmly against the tide of American dominance in the Middle East. They believe Iran to be an underdog who will soon compete on a global scale with America alongside Russia and China. They claim their will is independent and Islamic. It is now starkly clear that their hopes have been dashed and the reality has settled to whom Iran serves. This article hopes to highlight recent actions by Iran after the JCPOA and to whom these actions benefit the most.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)[1] is an agreement between Iran and US, UK, China, Germany and France to disarm Iran of any nuclear capability that could be used for military purposes. It is seen as one of Obama's biggest achievements.

It states under the JCPOA that:

Iran welcome this historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which will ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful, and mark a fundamental shift in their approach to this issue. They anticipate that full implementation of this JCPOA will positively contribute to regional and international peace and security. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

This cooperation between Washington and Tehran raised many eyebrows in Iran where the population have historically been anti-American. Many knew from the onset that a deal with America would never be favourable for Iran. In fact, Rouhani publicly praised the lifting of the sanctions [2] and regularly mentioned that Iran had the better deal out of the two, in order to quell any concerns from the Iranian public. Officials in the U.S. as well as the Israeli's were quick to notice this and hounded Obama for the first couple of weeks [3], suggesting that he hastened into a deal and that Iran would continue with their nuclear aspirations.

It's not about the nuclear weapons...

The world was duped into thinking the JCPOA is just about halting nuclear proliferation but they failed to understand the bigger picture behind the agreements. Yes, the JCPOA will indeed hamper Iran's nuclear capability and remove yet another Middle Eastern and more importantly Muslim country from the list of nuclear weapon holders, but the main purpose behind it is to relieve Iran economically and allow Her to follow America's demands subserviently, namely to become the face of Shi'itism in order to spread deathly sectarianism across the Muslim world, leading to the Muslims utter destruction and demise.

US Officials promised that they would hold Tehran accountable if they continued to support terrorism yet it was conveniently left out of the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism as an action that could reintroduce the sanctions. John Kerry said:

"If we catch them funding terrorism, they're going to have a problem with the United States Congress and with other people, obviously." [4]

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said :

"Iran, the foremost state sponser of terrorism -- continues to exert its influence in regional crises in the Middle East through the International Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its terrorist partner Lebanese Hezbollah, and proxy groups...Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partners worldwide." [5]

How does it benefit the West if Iran continue to support terrorist activities? And where is the proof that they are doing such?

Tehran has made it clear that they are supporting groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Palestine. In the November report issued by Congressional Research Service "Iran has apparently sought to rebuild the relationship with Hamas by providing missile technology that Hamas used to construct its own rockets, and by helping it rebuild tunnels destroyed in the [2014] conflict with Israel." [6]

Counter air-strikes by "Israel" have frequently hit Hezbollah or IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) members, such as IRGC Gen. Mohammad Ali Allahdadi in the January 2015 Mazraat Amal Incident. Last month, the group's secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, bluntly declared that "Hezbollah gets its money and arms from Iran, and as long as Iran has money, so does Hezbollah."[7]

As mentioned before, Iran's role as the Shi'ites protector and leader is to further sectarianism in the Muslim lands, and it is evident from their explicit support for the Houthi's in Yemen, Shi'ite militia's in Iraq and Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

It comes as no surprise when CENTCOM Chief Gen. Joseph Votel said

Iran has become "more aggressive in the days since the agreement". [8]

If Iran indeed had its own will then it would have turned the game plan of the U.S. upside down by supporting Palestine militarily and removing the occupation rather than meagre token gestures of underhand arms deals with Hamas and PIJ. As the Head of the Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Division Ali Hajizadeh said "Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war" [9]. They would stop all funding of armed Shi'a militias that are going around slaughtering Muslims. They would disobey their masters in Washington and unite the Muslims under Islam and not an "infallible" spiritual leader.

This article featured on http://voiceoftheummah.com

[1] JCPOA - https://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf
[2] President Rouhani hails lifting of Iran sanctions - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/president-rouhani-hails-lifting-iran-sanctions-160117104307664.html
[3] A Bad Deal Off to a Worse Start - http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start
[4] Iran's Support for Terrorism Under the JCPOA - http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-support-for-terrorism-under-the-jcpoa
[5] Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community - http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20160225/104550/HHRG-114-IG00-Wstate-ClapperJ-20160225.pdf
[6] CRS - Iran’s Foreign Policy - https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R44017.pdf
[7] Terrorist Chief: ‘As Long as Iran Has Money, We Will Have Money’ - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/hezbollah-chief-our-budget-income-weapons-all-come-iran
[8] COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE - http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/16-26_3-09-16.pdf
[9] Iran test fires missiles branded with words 'Israel must be wiped out' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/12188431/Iran-test-fires-missiles-branded-with-words-Israel-must-be-wiped-out.html

RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

Beyond the Rome Conference on the Libyan Crisis - by Abu Usaid

The Rome conference on the Libyan crisis aims at fragmenting the General National Congress and replacing it with an entity that would lend legitimacy to the Western military intervention to strike the opponents under the guise of fighting terrorism. It also aims to ensure the expansion of the movements affiliated to the West into the power vacuum and besiege or isolate their rivals to prevent them from influencing the design of the forthcoming regime. Daesh has become the "secret code" for activating all the political files and for imposing the foreign agendas in the region. During the Rome conference US Secretary of State John Kerry announced: "We cannot allow the status quo in Libya to continue. It is dangerous for the viability of Libya, it is dangerous for Libyans, and now, because of the increase of the presence of Daesh [Isis] purposefully migrating there, it is dangerous for everyone.... reaffirm support for a new Government of National Accord....So we say that those who persist in trying to disrupt the agreement will pay a price for their actions.... to address the problem of security – security in Tripoli to bring the government, which must be based at the end of the day in Tripoli..."  The way was paved for these statements in the previous week by circulating the rumour that the ISIS leader al-Baghdadi had moved to Libya and by hyping up the activities of the organisation in Sirte and Ajdabiya. The fragmentation became evident among the ranks of the General National Congress when Misrata and the forces of Fajr Libya backed the outcomes of the Tunis meeting and the Rome conference in addition to  when the forces of the General National Congress differed over who would represent it in signing the agreement of al-Sukhayrat in a few days. The General National Congress are most probably conspiring to effectuate the agreement since the difference over their representative is inconsequential, especially that they had agreed on forming a government of national unity.t Furthermore, the struggle between the Libyan  political forces is not ideological but rather based on partisan interests, and because most of the influential movements on the ground are linked to foreign agendas executed through the US agents in the gulf and Libya's neighbouring countries.

The main problem of the masses in the region is their inability to view the solution to their problems outside the frameworks imposed by the world order, though it has been the cause of their crisis and misery and though it only takes into account the interests of the influential powers. Instead of taking the international interests into account when thinking about her system in her quality as an Ummah with a message who does not wish to harm other nations, the Ummah is working towards establishing a system and solving her problems according to the exigencies of the other nations' interests under the pretext of her inability to confront the world order and the major powers. In fact, the powerlessness of the Ummah stems from her thinking rather than her reality. She is capable of achieving liberation and revival more than any other nation because she possesses the doctrinal and material forces. She is the only nation capable of leading the world, muzzling capitalism and achieving justice and happiness in the world if she perceived her mission in life and what her message necessitates in terms of sacrifices.   

This Ummah will not achieve liberation until she perceives that Allah (swt) has not created her for the objective generated by the capitalist ideology that has halted her productive way of thinking and her will to achieve liberation. The Ummah will not recover her volition until she is prepared to endure boycott, blockade, hunger and deprivation like the Messenger of Allah (saw) and his noble Sahaba (ra) did; they accepted the challenge and their weakness and poverty produced power and prosperity, and they ruled the world with their good-hearted Shari'ah. The history of our Ummah is rich with parables for those who wish to take heed.
 
"And unto everyone who is conscious of Allah, He grants a way out and provides for him in a manner beyond all expectation; and for everyone who places his trust in Allah, He alone is enough. Indeed Allah always attains to His purpose and indeed, unto everything has Allah appointed its term and measure."

14 December 2015

By Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550077131817357

The Western Lie of Terrorism by Abu Usaid

Terrorism is a lie which the West concocted, believed it, lived its episodes and built its policies towards the Muslims upon its basis. The Muslims swallowed the bait, accused themselves, disowned their religion and punished themselves for a crime they never committed; they even agreed with their enemies to slay and dissect the victim and reward the perpetrators. They capitulated to reality and became the major player in concretising it despite what it carries in terms of Kufr and misery. They handed their leadership over to the preachers of "renouncing Islam for the sake of Islam"; those whose thoughts agree with the allegations, values and systems of the West.

How could they ever achieve victory while they admit they are the perpetrator and their enemy is the victim? How could they ever carry the message of Allah (swt) to guide humanity while they believe that their religion is one of terrorism? How could they ever despair from the Da'awah of Allah (swt) who says:

"Hence, place your trust in Allah; for behold, what you believe in is the self-evident truth. But indeed you cannot make the dead hear and you cannot make the deaf hear this call when they turn their backs on you and go away. Just as you cannot lead the blind of heart out of their error; none can you make hear save such as those who believe in our Ayat and thus surrender themselves unto Us." 27-79,80,81]

15 December 2015   

By Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550122795146124?fref=nf&pnref=story

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

Sheikh of Al-Azhar meets far right-wing French National Front leader in Cairo

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/18968-meeting-between-sheikh-al-azhar-and-marine-le-pen-fulfilled-different-objectives

Marine Le Pen and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib have both defended their recent meeting in the Egyptian capital. The leader of the extreme right-wing French National Front met the Sheikh of Al-Azhar on Thursday in his Cairo establishment. Their defence came in the face of a storm of criticism due to Le Pen's well-known hostility towards Muslims. Al-Azhar has come under pressure from coup leader Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who met with Al-Tayyib last Wednesday. The meeting was followed by a statement issued by the Egyptian presidency alluding to an agreement to make changes in the curricula of Al-Azhar University.

Observers claim that the French extremist intends to use the visit to rid her party of the stigma of extremism, not least because she will be standing in the French presidential election in 2017. Local sources in Cairo said that Al-Tayyib tried through this meeting to divert the anger of Al-Sisi, who is displeased with him for not responding sufficiently to his demand to "renew" religious discourse, which to the coup leader means manipulating what is taught at the historic university.

In an exclusive interview with Sky Arabic TV on Saturday, Marine Le Pen said, without a touch of irony, that it was important for her to visit Egypt for the first time because of its vital role in the context of the influence of "extremists and terrorists" who now constitute a real global problem.

"President Sisi's speeches, which I consider to be very brave, have motivated me [to visit Egypt]," said Le Pen. "I wanted through this visit to clarify the misunderstanding we have about our vision of the Arab world and the events there and to discuss the efforts to combat extremism."

The right-winger stuck to her position of objecting to Muslim women wearing the headscarf and what she described as "the Muslims praying in the roads". She stressed that France is a secular country and that Muslims in France should respect the law of the land.

The Deputy Dean of Al-Azhar, Dr Abbas Shuman, said that receiving the National Front leader, who is known for her extremist and anti-Islam opinions, does not mean she was welcomed by Sheikh Al-Azhar. It simply means, he insisted, that Al-Azhar is opening up to the Other and that it is implementing the true Islamic teachings, proving that Sunni Islam is well advanced compared to political trends across the entire world, especially in the West.

In a statement made on Saturday, Shuman denied that the Azharis were furious because Sheikh Al-Azhar received Le Pen. "Whoever spoke about the anger of the Azharites because the Grand Imam received the leader of the French party only exposed their identity after they claimed that Al-Tayyib remains indifferent while seeing blood being spilled." He pointed out that the stances of Sheikh Al-Azhar towards bloodshed is known to all. However, he did not explain what he meant by that.

Within the same context, a source at the French embassy in Cairo disclosed that Le Pen's visit was unofficial, with no coordination by the embassy to organise it; the meetings took place away from any official protocol and the embassy had no idea why she was visiting Egypt.

In the meantime, the Washington Post published a detailed report about the visit and said that some observers abroad criticised Le Pen, stating that the timing was inappropriate. The deputy director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa department, Nadim Houri, said: "Perhaps Le Pen's visit will be interpreted as a means of support for President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi."

This would be embarrassing for the Egyptian regime, given that Le Pen's party wants to stop issuing licences to build mosques in France and she has likened Muslim prayers in the street to the Nazis. This is problematical because the head of the French Council for the Islamic Religion, Dalil Abu Bakr, has called for doubling the number of mosques in France in order to solve the issue of the lack of places for millions of French Muslims to hold their acts of worship. There are only 2,200 mosques in France; this number needs to be doubled, he said, in order to fulfil the needs of the increasing number of Muslims.

In a long statement issued after her visit to Cairo, Le Pen expressed her extreme views openly as she mentioned what she believed are issues of mutual agreement between her and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib: "The vital importance of ten million Coptic Christians, the descendants of Ancient Egyptians, who pay a heavy price for Islamic intolerance and the balancing role that France and Egypt should play in the conflicts raging across the Arab world; the stabilising role that Egypt should play in Libya; and the importance of convincing the citizens of North Africa and the Middle East not to relinquish the lands of their ancestors in pursuit of an unknown future in Europe."

Observers have concluded from this that the meeting between Sheikh Al-Azhar and Marine Le Pen had a political agenda for each of them. While the latter sought to make political gains within the French political arena as a result of the meeting, the former sought to appease Al-Sisi. That he needed to do this is evident from the repeated calls within the pro-Sisi media outlets for Al-Tayyib to be sacked from his prestigious position.

Zionist gangs were the first terrorist groups in the Middle East

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/origins-savagery-middle-east-non-islamic-origins-terrorist-jihadi-groups

There is an attempt underway to make the case that Islam, the religion, inspired or spawned the creation of various jihadist groups. The fact that the US itself was a major catalyst for the creation of such groups, as that was its plot against communism during the Cold War, often goes unmentioned. But to understand the horrific savagery of terrorist groups in the Middle East you have to go to the origins of militias in the Middle East.

Zionist gangs were the first modern militias in the Middle East. This runs contrary to the silly (and racist and bigoted) thesis of Thomas Friedman’s silly book, “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” wherein he posits that Israel was contaminated by its Arab and Muslim surrounding, and that the Jews, unlike backward Muslims, were genetically incapable of producing acts of violence, but were forced to change their ways to survive in this new savage neighborhood. Zionist gangs in pre-1948 Palestine were the real pioneers of terrorism in the Middle East. They were the first to perpetrate acts of terrorism that are often assumed to have been introduced by Hamas in the 1990s. It was Zionist terrorist groups who first 1) tossed grenades into cafes, market places, and public squares; 2) shelled villages and towns indiscriminately; 3) threw grenades on busses; 4) sent letter bombs; 5) used booby-trapped ambulances against Palestinians; 6) used car bombs; 7) used barrel bombs; 8) and bombed hotels. And all those pioneering acts of terrorism occurred as far back as the 1930s and 1940s. Later, when the Israeli state was founded atop an already existing Palestinian state, the new state pioneered other acts of terrorism including hijacking of planes and the use of planes in indiscriminate bombings.

Yet, modern-style Arab militias did not really form until the Lebanese civil war of 1975 when the right-wing Maronite militias of Lebanon started to engage in unprecedented savagery (there were militias in Oman, south Sudan, and Kurdistan, as well, but the Lebanese Phalanges and the Sham`unis had been operating since 1958). Unsurprisingly, the Lebanese right-wing Maronite (Christian) militias received Israeli training since their inception, and their association with the Israeli military and intelligence only grew over time. The Sabra and Shatila massacre of 1982 was not the first collaboration between those two terrorist factions.

The Phalanges militia (and its other Maronite-oriented militias) started the Lebanese civil war and they were responsible for its prolongment. The other side was not prepared; it took time for the PLO to — begrudgingly — set up Lebanese militias. But the savagery that characterized the Lebanese civil war was clearly the pioneering work of Bashir Gemayyel and his gangs. They were the first groups to kidnap and kill on the basis of sectarian identity. They were the first to cut off limbs and other body parts (barrels of Muslim penises were found, the work of Phalanges and Tigers militias, who in 1975-76 pulled passengers out of cars and checked if they were circumcised. They were the first to mutilate corpses (there are accounts of their horrific deeds in books written by Beirut-based correspondents at the time, like Jonathan Randal and Helena Cobban and others). The right-wing non-Muslim militias also burned people alive in various refugee camps and in poor, Shia-dominated shantytowns in East Beirut. They were the first militia to shackle men to the back of cars and drag them through the streets until they die. They were the first to slice people up while alive, and to dump bodies into the ocean while placing their legs in cement. The account of one of the henchmen of the Phalanges, Joseph Saadeh, has not been translated into English, but it reveals the extent to which the right-wing non-Muslim militias introduced a level of savagery and brutality neither Lebanon nor the region had known before in internal fighting (See SAADE, Joseph, BRUNQUELL, Frédéric et COUDERC, Frédéric, 1989, Victime et bourreau, Paris: Calmann-Lévy.)

This is not to say that Lebanese civil wars of the 19th century were not brutal, they were. But never at the level that Lebanon witnessed in 1975-76, and its aftermath, at the hands of those right-wing Maronite-oriented groups (which received the largesse of the terrorist state of Israel and also of the US government, at the highest level after 1980).

Yet, when those Christian militias — who used the cross in their emblems and had Christian motifs in their mottos and rhetoric — engaged in these horrific war crimes, the Western press didn’t attribute that to their religion. Yet, if a Muslim commits one act of murder or terrorism, the blame falls on the Islamic religion and all Muslims of the world. Neither Judaism nor Christianity should be blamed for the crimes of Jewish or Christian terror groups. But those who are interested in studying the phenomenon of ISIS and its savagery should go back to the Lebanese civil war and study the contributions of the death squads on the Maronite right. They will see some similarities that fly in the face of conventional wisdom in Washington, DC..

ISIS: Is Baghdadi fictional?

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/us-fightingterror-group-with-fictional.html


In 2007, the New York Times revealed that long-vilified "Islamic State" leader Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi did not exist, and that the creation of this fictional character was a ruse to obfuscate the role of foreigners in the creation and perpetuation of "Al Qaeda in Iraq." 

In an article titled, "Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says," the NYT reports that: 

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.

The NYT would also reveal the purpose of the deception: 

The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.  

The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.

The admission by US military leaders, reported in the NYT, reveals that the so-called "Islamic State" was nothing more than an appendage of Al Qaeda - with Al Qaeda itself directly armed, funded, and backed by stalwart US allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Despite the NYT and the Pentagon's admissions, the entire ruse has continued, on an exponential scale.

US Intentionally Raised and Unleashed Al Qaeda Upon Iraq and Syria 

Al Qaeda's current presence in Iraq and Syria, and their leading role in the fight against the Iranian-leaning government's of Damascus and Baghdad, are the present-day manifestation of a Western criminal conspiracy exposed as early as 2007.  Revealed by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article,  "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" it was stated explicitly that (emphasis added): 

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. 

The Daily Beast would report in an article literally titled, "America's Allies Are Funding ISIS," that: 

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.
The extremist group that is threatening the existence of the Iraqi state was built and grown for years with the help of elite donors from American supposed allies in the Persian Gulf region. There, the threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war trumps the U.S. goal of stability and moderation in the region. 

Baghdadi Ruse Not Only to Hide "Foreign" role, but to Hide US-Saudi Involvement

Today, another "al-Baghdadi" allegedly leads the "Islamic State." His existence and leadership role is also unconfirmed and the likelihood that Al Qaeda's "Baghdadi ruse" is simply being repeated, amid feigned and complicit ignorance by the Pentagon, is all but confirmed.  Not only does the "Islamic State's" leader appear to be entirely fictional, but so is ISIS itself. It is nothing more than the rebranding of Al Qaeda, working seamlessly with other Western and Persian Gulf-backed militant fronts including Al Nusra, for the explicit goal of overthrowing the government of Syria and using the despoiled nation as a staging ground for a similar proxy war to be waged upon Iran.

The United States, bombing a fictional terrorist organization led by a non-existent, fictional character, is at the very heart of the ruse described by the NYT in 2007, a ruse that continues to present day. The goal is not to eliminate ISIS, but to use the fictional front as a pretext to further intervene on behalf of real militant extremists forming the core of the joint US-NATO-Saudi proxy front for the purpose of overthrowing the government in Damascus.

At face value, it would seem as if US policy has failed utterly, if in fact its goal was to truly neutralize ISIS. But with ISIS a fictional creation led by non-existent leaders, and the stated goal of the US being the overthrow of the Syrian government, the doubling of territory held by Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda's approach to cities like Aleppo on the brink of being liberated by Syrian troops, it is clear that America's presence in Syria - not to mention in neighboring Iraq - is to support, not stop these terrorist forces. 

Obama's prevention of atrocities strategy by siding with dictators is hypocritical given the current alliances

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obamas-troubling-counterterrorism-allies-dictators/2015/01/25/56ad3d76-a288-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html?hpid=z3

Prevention of Atrocities Whitehouse fact sheet:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/fact-sheet-comprehensive-strategy-and-new-tools-prevent-and-respond-atro/


As President Obama stumbles in implementing his own strategy for combating terrorism, the United States is reverting, almost by default, to an earlier, failed approach: a reliance on dictators to do our dirty work.

The latest, and saddest, indication of Obama’s capitulation to this oldthink has been signals sent by his administration that the United States will no longer insist on Bashar al-Assad’s departure as leader of Syria, as Michael R. Gordon and Anne Barnard recently reported in the New York Times.

From link above:

Mr. Kerry said before the failed peace talks in Geneva last year that the United States’ goal was a transitional government in Syria that did not include Mr. Assad. But he refrained from making such an explicit demand on Wednesday, urging instead that Syria’s leaders rethink their course.

“It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad,” Mr. Kerry said.

Obama’s demand that Assad leave was never more than rhetorical. Still, it has to be dispiriting for the president who created the Atrocities Prevention Board (“President Obama has made the prevention of atrocities a key focus of this Administration’s foreign policy,” a White House fact sheet says) to acknowledge implicitly that he has no Syria strategy without Assad

Assad is the bloodiest butcher of this young century, but he’s hardly the only example of the United States’ reborn love of strongmen. Egypt’s new dictator has killed and imprisoned opponents with a brazenness Hosni Mubarak never dreamed of. The State Department is eager to embrace him in a new partnership.

Obama used to insist that the government of Bahrain “engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.” Now, as Bahrain cracks down on peaceful dissidents, the United States barely notices.

In Central Asia’s Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, 76, presides over a closed society of prison camps and forced labor. But immediately after he announced he would rule for five more years — after all, he’s been in charge only since 1989 — the United States approved a shipment of weaponry for his government and counseled “a certain amount of strategic patience in how change can take place.”

From Azerbaijan to Saudi Arabia, where Obama will visit Tuesday, the United States is cozying up to dictators who share some key attributes. They agree with the United States that Islamic extremism must be fought. But they also go after nonviolent opponents — and they are most ferocious against secular, liberal critics. By destroying any moderate forces, they can present themselves as the only alternative to religious fundamentalism.

“Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder,” the president said. “[S]trategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. . . . The status quo is not sustainable.”

Obama promised a historic shift in policy, away from the short-term comfort of alliances with dictators and toward promoting “self-determination and opportunity.”

So what happened? The Arab Spring didn’t go as hoped — and the United States began to lose the war. An al-Qaeda offshoot shockingly conquered large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Libya descended into civil war. Yemen, which Obama cited just last year as proof of his successful strategy, is on a similar downward spiral. The Taliban is gaining ground in Afghanistan. Boko Haram is carving out another space for barbarism in Nigeria.

When Obama is questioned about this picture, he generally stands up his favorite straw man: “If the assertion is, is that had we invaded Syria we would be less prone to terrorist attacks, I’ll leave it to you to play out that scenario and whether that sounds accurate,” he said during his recent news conference with British leader David Cameron.

But that is not the assertion. What critics suggest is that Obama should implement the strategy he outlined in a speech at West Point in May: not a U.S. invasion, not a subcontracting of the war to heavy-handed dictators, but “a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel” with moderate forces committed to fighting extremism.

Unfortunately, Obama has put little meat on that strategy. He toppled Libya’s strongman, then abandoned the country. He pulled all advisers out of Iraq and vows to do the same to Afghanistan. He emphasizes drone strikes, but with little of the institution-building that would engender cooperation over the long term. Help for Syrian moderates has been promised again and again for four years, with little to show for it. 

Is Charlie Hebdo the French 9/11

http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/26/rus-charlie-hebdo-i-posledstviya/

In some countries (primarily Muslim) the manifestations against the provocative publications of controversial cartoons of the Prophet that mocked the religious feelings of all Muslims are still on the rise. Some experts have linked these provocative anti-Muslim cartoons with the acquisition of Charlie Hebdo by the Rothschilds in December 2014, the latter of whom are constantly worrying about their profits. But now they can be fairly content since after these tragic events the number of copies sold increased tenfold!

Another group of experts believes that the attack on French journalists was the result of direct actions of Western intelligence agencies. Therefore, the consequences of the Charlie Hebdo massacre can be compared to those of 9/11 attack, such as the tightening of security in Europe. These agencies have been seeking ways to create obstacles to the spread of Islam in Europe, along with obtaining legislative support to establish total surveillance over the activities and private lives of Europeans. Political elites behind such agencies believe that democratic rights, the protection of which has been the focal point of all populist political speeches in the West, should be narrowed. Police control in Western countries is increasingly intrusive with each passing day, as the growing distrust and discontent of the European population becomes more apparent. Western elites have failed to put forward comprehensive social and economic measures that could ease this growing angst, therefore an increase in political activity, anti-government demonstrations, and electoral control over ruling parties was inevitable.

The recent two-day meeting of Foreign Ministers of the EU in Brussels, summoned to discuss the “urgent measures to strengthen the fight against terrorism.” can be regarded as damning evidence against Western elites. It was of little surprise for experts that the topic of these discussions was the adoption of a EU version of the US Patriot Act, that is used by Washington to control not only its fellow citizens, but “allies” alike.

Thus, Paris is clearly following the lead of Washington in the use of a pretext of fighting against “radical Islam” and “terrorism” in order to tighten up national legislation by adopting a French version of the notorious Patriot Act. Somehow it doesn’t make Western intelligence agencies look less guilty as far as the attack on Charlie Hebdo is concerned. French authorities are now empowered to undermine thousands of opponents of Elysee Palace, along with progressive and pro-democracy organizations and parties, as well as members of the independent press, as has been done in the US.

What follows will be other European countries putting on a similar totalitarian hat, by handing over the personal lives of their civilians to intelligence services, both local and American.

Hypocrisy of the nations

"So here are some of the staunch defenders of the free press that attended the solidarity rally in Paris today..."

1) King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Jordanian-Palestinian-who-writes-for-Post-sentenced-in-Jordan-to-life-with-hard-labor-341596

2) Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/dec/18/journalist-safety-turkey

3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forced killed 7 journalists in Gaza last year (second highest after Syria)
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-barometer-journalists-killed.html?annee=2014

4) Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as AJ staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/12/20/photojournalist-shawkan-describes-endless-nightmare-behind-bars/

5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant"
http://en.rsf.org/russie-journalist-arrested-after-17-09-2014,46974.html

6) Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charge
http://en.rsf.org/algerie-journalist-held-without-trial-in-17-11-2014,47235.html

7) The Foreign Minister of the UAE, which in 2013 held a journo incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links
https://cpj.org/2013/08/uae-authorities-release-egyptian-journalist-after.php

8) Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for "defaming the army"
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/tunisia-blogger-jailed-military-court-should-be-released-2015-01-06

9) The PMs of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journos
http://en.rsf.org/georgie-at-least-a-dozen-journalists-27-05-2011,40365.html
http://en.rsf.org/bulgarie-police-attack-journalists-covering-26-07-2013,44980.html

10) The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/13/washington-post-reporter-arrested-in-ferguson/

11) Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year
http://en.rsf.org/greece-riot-police-injure-woman-13-06-2014,46435.html

12) Sec-Gen of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journos in '99
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/no-justice-victims-nato-bombings-20090423

13) President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses
https://cpj.org/2013/05/malian-army-expels-french-journalist-from-gao.php

14) The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them)
http://cpj.org/2014/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2013-bahrain.php

15) Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/10/qatar-court-upholds-sentence-against-poet-20131021123723850815.html

16) Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Palestinian-journalist-jailed-for-insulting-Abbas-308014

17) Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013
http://en.rsf.org/slovenia-blogger-gets-six-months-in-jail-16-05-2013,44621.html

18) Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where "blasphemy" is considered a criminal offense
http://en.rsf.org/ireland-making-blasphemy-an-offence-takes-04-01-2010,35672.html

19) Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party
http://en.rsf.org/poland-violating-confidentiality-of-20-06-2014,46487.html

20) PM Cameron of the UK, where author ities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution
http://en.rsf.org/uk-government-s-culpable-20-08-2013,45073.html

21) Saudi ambassador to France. The Saudis publicly flogged blogger @raif_badawi for "insulting Islam" on Friday

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi