|
Who's
Who in Afghanistan
Excerpts
from article describing the leading power brokers and military
leaders in Afghanistan ... just a few are included here, so
refer to the article for the complete list:
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
Taleban
Mullah
Mohammed Omar (Pashtun)
(click for full profile)
The
religious leader of the Taleban movement. He was given the title
of Amir al-Mo'menein or Commander of the Faithful - after he
cloaked himself in a gown said to be that of the prophet Mohammed
- after the fall of Kabul in 1996. ...
Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (Pashtun)
Press spokesman
of Mullah Omar, he has swiftly risen through the ranks of the
Taleban after being a driver and food taster. ...
United
Front (Northern Alliance)
Northern Alliance soldiers playing
buzkashi, a traditional Afghan riding game
President Burhanuddin Rabbani (Tajik)
Political
leader and nominal head of the Northern Alliance, which is officially
known as the United National and Islamic Front for the Salvation
of Afghanistan (Unifsa). He is also the leader of Jamiat-e-Islami,
the largest political party in the alliance. ...
General Mohammed Fahim (Tajik)
Head
of intelligence of the Northern Alliance replacement to General
Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated shortly before the
11 September attacks on the US. Fahim faces a difficult task.
Massoud was regarded as a charismatic leader, and a stabilising
influence on the often fractious Northern Alliance. ...
State
of Northern Alliance forces
North & East of Kabul as of Oct. 26th
General
Rashid Dostum (Uzbek)
(click for full profile)
Head
of Jombesh-e Melli Islami (National Islamic Movement), a predominantly
Uzbek militia forming part of the Northern Alliance. ... It
is believed that Dostum receives the majority of Turkish assistance
because of a common cultural heritage between Turks and Uzbeks.
...
State
of Northern Alliance forces
Around Mazar-i-Sharif as of Oct. 26th
Karim Khalili (Hazara)
Leader
of the Hezb-e-Wahdat (Unity Party) which represents the Shia
ethnic Hazara minority. Wahdat is the main benefactor of Iranian
support. ...
Others
...
Zahir
Shah (Pashtun)
(click for full profile)
Former
king of Afghanistan who was deposed by his cousin Daoud during
a visit to Europe in 1973.
As a Durrani Pashtun he has much support in the southern belt
of Afghanistan and, some believe, because of ethnic ties, with
regional leaders who have allied themselves with the Taleban.
...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
The
International Religious Freedom Report for 2001
Excerpts
from the annual report on the state of religious freedom in
the world, released today ...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
Home
Page ... This Annual Report includes 195 reports on economies
worldwide.
Preface
... The 2001 Report covers the period from July 1, 2000 to June
30, 2001, and reflects a year of dedicated effort by hundreds
of State Department, Foreign Service, and other U.S. Government
employees. ...
Introduction
... A commitment to the inviolable and universal dignity of
the human person is at the core of U.S. human rights policy
abroad, including the policy of advocating religious freedom.
Governments
that protect religious freedom for all their citizens are more
likely to protect the other fundamental human rights. ...
Freedom
of religion and conscience is one of the foundational rights
in the post-War system of international human rights instruments.
...
Executive
Summary The vast majority of the world's governments have
committed themselves to respect religious freedom.
In
1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognizing that freedom
of belief had been proclaimed the highest aspiration of the
common people.
In
Article 18, member states affirmed the right of everyone to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom
to change one's religion and manifest one's religion alone or
with others, in public or private.
Article
29 stated that the only limitations on religious freedom permissible
were those that would secure recognition and respect for the
rights and freedoms of others and would meet the just requirements
of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic
society.
In
addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, most
countries have accepted one or more of the other international
instruments that explicitly protect freedom of religion and
belief. ... All signatories have pledged "not to discriminate
on the basis of religion." ...
Part
I: Barriers to International Religious Freedom
TOTALITARIAN
OR AUTHORITARIAN ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR PRACTICE
Totalitarian
and authoritarian regimes are defined by the high degree to
which they seek to control thought and expression, especially
dissent.
It
is not uncommon for such regimes to regard religious groups
as enemies of the state because of the content of the religion,
the fact that the very practice of religion threatens the dominant
ideology (often by diverting the loyalties of adherents toward
an authority beyond the state), the ethnic character of the
religious group, or a mixture of all three.
When one or more of these elements is present, the result often
is the suppression of religion by the regime.
- Afghanistan,
Burma, China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam.
STATE
HOSTILITY TOWARD MINORITY OR NONAPPROVED RELIGIONS
Some
governments, while not necessarily determined to implement a
program of control over minority religions, nevertheless are
hostile to certain minority religions or to elements of religious
groups identified as "security threats."
These
governments implement policies designed to intimidate certain
religious groups, cause their adherents to convert to another
faith, or cause their members to flee.
- Iran,
Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
STATE
NEGLECT OF THE PROBLEM OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST, OR PERSECUTION
OF, MINORITY OR NONAPPROVED RELIGIONS
In
some countries, governments have laws or policies to discourage
religious discrimination and persecution but fail to act with
sufficient consistency and vigor against violations of religious
freedom by nongovernmental entities or local law enforcement
officials.
- Egypt,
India, Indonesia, Nigeria.
DISCRIMINATORY
LEGISLATION OR POLICIES DISADVANTAGING CERTAIN RELIGIONS
Some
governments have implemented laws or regulations that favor
certain religions and place others at a disadvantage.
Often
this circumstance is the result of the historical predominance
of one religion in a country and may reflect broad social skepticism
about new or minority religions.
At
times it stems from the emergence of a country from a long period
of Communist rule, in which all religion was prohibited or,
at best, out of favor.
In
such countries, skepticism or even the fear of certain religions
or all religions lingers within segments of society.
In
some cases, this circumstance has led to a curtailment of religious
freedom.
- Belarus,
Brunei, Bulgaria, Eritrea, Georgia, Israel and the Occupied
Territories, Jordan, Malaysia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Yugoslavia.
STIGMATIZATION
OF CERTAIN RELIGIONS BY WRONGFULLY ASSOCIATING THEM WITH DANGEROUS
"CULTS" OR "SECTS"
The
governments of a few countries, in an attempt to protect their
citizens from dangerous or harmful groups, have adopted discriminating
laws and policies.
By
blurring the distinctions between religions and violent or fraudulent
groups, the governments of these countries have disadvantaged
groups that may appear to be different or unusual, but are in
fact peaceful and straightforward.
In
all of these countries, existing criminal law is sufficient
to address criminal behavior by groups of individuals.
New
laws or policies that criminalize or stigmatize religious expression
can put religious freedom at risk.
- Austria,
Belgium, France, Germany.
...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
|
Bin
Laden Hijacks History for His Holy War
Complete
article describing the fallacies practiced by bin Laden in his
maniacal attempts to wage war against the western world ...
-
- - begin article - - -
The
Crusades are a very convenient weapon to throw at the West.
George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden have both, in recent weeks,
used the word “crusade”.
The
American President did so in a typically sloppy misuse of words,
referring to “this crusade, this war on terrorism”.
The
terrorist leader did so with precise calculation, knowing that
the immense weight of historical meaning associated with the
Crusades in the Muslim mind is a source not merely of propaganda,
but of power.
One
side has too little sense of history, the other too much.
Bush
has depicted the current conflict as something utterly new,
without precedent or historical context.
Bin
Laden and his like, by contrast, have hijacked history to create
their own monstrous terrorist vision, defining themselves and
their aims in emphatically historical terms.
Americans
find it extraordinary that anyone could seriously link the religious
Crusades starting in the 11th century with the attack on the
World Trade Centre in the 21st century, but historical memory
in the Middle East is long and deep, while the crime of the
Crusades is deeply embedded in Islamic rhetoric.
Bin
Laden’s threat lies not just in his own violence but in
his ability to stoke historical resentments in a region where
the past is never over.
During
his Afghan cave video, bin Laden made no fewer than three distinct
historical allusions, each evoking a specific and emotive moment
in Muslim history. Their
meaning was not lost on the Muslim audience.
First
he called for “a new battle, a great battle, similar to
the great battles of Islam, like the conqueror of Jerusalem”.
This
was clearly a reference to Salah-ad-Din Yusuf ibn- Ayyub, or
Saladin, the great Kurdish-born Muslim leader who liberated
the Holy City from the Crusaders in 1187.
Saladin
is historical shorthand for Muslim machismo, a paragon of Islamic
virtue, the symbol of what Islamic greatness once was and what,
in the extremist mind, it ought to be again.
Bin
Laden has repeatedly sought to drape himself in Saladin’s
mantle. “I envision Saladin coming out of the clouds carrying
his sword, with the blood of unbelievers dripping from it.”
Bin
Laden’s second reference was more recent:
“What
America is facing today is a little of what we have tasted for
decades. Our
nation, for nearly 80 years, has tasted this humiliation,”
he said, simultaneously recalling
- the
final break-up of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War,
- the
ending of Muslim rule over Jerusalem in 1917, and
- the
Mandate for Palestine of 1922 that recognised the “historical
connection of the Jewish people with Palestine”, and
- the
“grounds for reconstituting their national home in that
country”.
The
final historical allusion was so oblique that most Western translations
simply ignored it. “Let the whole world know that we shall
never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated
in Palestine.”
Al-Andalus,
or Islamic Spain, denotes the great Islamic civilisation forged
in Europe as the Muslims extended west, reaching the borders
of southern France in the 8th century.
Córdoba
boasted elegant palaces, 700
mosques, 70 libraries, 900 public baths and street lights before
anywhere else in Europe.
If
Saladin recalls military might, then Islamic Spain is code for
cultural superiority eroded by Christian conquest.
From
the 11th century, the Muslims were gradually pushed south, and
in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella raised their flag over the Alhambra
and the last Islamic kingdom of Granada.
For
bin Laden, this is the Spanish tragedy, whereby an “alien”
civilisation was able to take over the jewel of Islam, just
as the Jews are masters of Jerusalem.
The
implication is also plainly expansionist: the Islamic empire
he proposes does not stop where the worship of Allah ends, but
should take in at least as much of the planet as it once did.
Bin
Laden’s use of history as a terrorist weapon is, of course,
quite wrong, morally and historically.
Saladin
was a great general, but he is also celebrated for his qualities
of mercy, diplomacy and generosity.
When
Richard the Lionheart lay ill, Saladin dispatched his own doctor
with ice from the mountains to treat the ailing Crusader.
Bin
Laden has shown no evidence of mercy, let alone chivalry.
His
philosophy is grounded on a refusal to negotiate, and in character
he and his terrorists are closer to the Mameluke Turk Baybers,
who came after Saladin and massacred the remaining Crusaders
with staggering ferocity.
Islamic
Spain was as much the result of conquest as the Crusaders’
occupation of Jerusalem, while cosmopolitan Córdoba could
hardly be further from what the Taleban and bin Laden have wrought,
a world without learning, song or beauty.
In
his declaration of jihad, bin Laden stated: “The Crusader
forces became the main cause of our disastrous condition.”
Few
would dispute that the Crusades involved war crimes on a massive
scale, a whipping-up of religious hatred for the purposes of
pillage and political consolidation in fractured Europe, a largely
unprovoked war waged against a deeply cultured people.
In
1099 the Crusaders desecrated the Dome of the Rock and murdered
Jews and Muslims in such numbers that the streets of Jerusalem
ran ankle-deep with blood.
But
almost a millennium later, the Crusades have become the convenient
and specious rationale for an aggressive, anachronistic inferiority
complex.
For
it is not Bush but bin Laden who epitomises the brutal, overtly
political, expansionist, casually murderous and bigoted spirit
of the Crusaders.
“Enter
upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre, wrest that land from the
wicked race . . . Deus lo volt!, God wills it.” The words
are those of Pope Urban II in 1095, but their modern incarnation
is Osama bin Laden.
-
- - end of article - - -
Source:
- The Times
[link inactive]
Largest
Defense Contract in History, $200 Billion for Joint Strike Fighter
Excerpts
from an article detailing the award of the contract for the
Joint Strike Fighter to Lockheed Martin, a table with links
to web sites displaying and describing the aircraft, and excerpts
from an article with some unique perspectives on the aircraft
...
-
- - begin excerpt - - -
Lockheed
Martin has won the contract to develop the new Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) aircraft.
It
beat fierce competition from its rival Boeing for the contract
- which is estimated to be worth $200bn (£140bn).
|
|
The
US government wants up to 3,000 JSFs over the next 40
years to replace nearly all fighter jets currently in
use.
|
...
The new plane will be able to take off quickly, land vertically
and on carrier decks, and have radar-evading capabilities. It
will replace most of the fighter jets of the US Air Force, Navy
and Marines.
Britain's
Air Force and Navy also want 150 of the planes, and the UK has
already contributed $2bn (£1.4bn) towards development
costs.
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
JSF:
The last manned fighter?
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
The
decision by the Pentagon to award the contract on the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) to Lockheed Martin will influence combat
aircraft well into the 21st century.
The
choice was critical, not only for the industrial ramifications
of this $200bn deal, but because the aircraft will become the
backbone of US and UK air forces well into the middle of this
century.
In
fact, with the rise of unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs),
- or armed robot drones, the JSF could well be the last manned
fighter ever built.
...
In US service, the JSF will replace such strike aircraft as
the F-16, A-10 Warthog and F/A-18 Hornets. For the UK, it will
succeed the RAF's Harrier GR7s and the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier
FRS2s.
As
an added benefit using one type of strike fighter among allies
promotes interoperability, a buzzword for today's militaries
that need to fight in coalitions with other nations.
...
The JSF will come in several variants all having a great deal
in common; a baseline air force model, a carrier version with
folding wings and a short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL)
variant that will replace Harriers in US and UK inventories.
...
The JSF in service will be a supersonic stealthy strike aircraft,
with the latest precision weapons, such as GPS and laser-guided
bombs, as well as air-to-air missiles to engage other aircraft.
The
pilot will have unparalleled 'situational awareness' or a 'God's
eye' view of the battlefield projected on large colour cockpit
displays using radar, sensors and off-board datalinks.
The
pilot will be equipped with a helmet-mounted sight that will
allow them to target enemies literally 'over-their-shoulder'.
...
it is clear from the air campaign on Afghanistan, the carrier
strike aircraft is still the first weapon of choice in the US
arsenal.
The
JSF, in US and UK service, will enhance this and enable both
countries to project long-range firepower, without needing airbases
in a nearby country, which are vulnerable to attack or political
sensitivities.
|
|
Its
stealth design will allow it to operate unmolested, while
its precision strike capabilities will get the job done.
|
The
US White House has already requested that the JSF's production
be accelerated by two years, to bring the fighter into service
in around 2010. ...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
|
