Ruhanie Ahmad
Peristiwa keganasan berdarah di New York dan Washington DC pada 11 September 2001 - dikenali sebagai tragedi 911 - telah menyebabkan Amerika Syarikat (AS) melancarkan Perang Antiterorisme Global (PAG) kononnya untuk menghapuskan terorisme Islam antarabangsa.
Anehnya, seluruh medan tempur PAG ini adalah di pelbagai wilayah Islam di benua Asia. Ia membuktikan pemilihan medan tempur ini adalah dirancang secara teliti dan menyeluruh dengan beberapa agenda penuh rahsia.
Medan tempur PAG yang pertama adalah di Asia Tengah. Mulai 24 Oktober 2001, tentera AS dan sekutunya pun menyerang Afghanistan. Alasannya, negara itu kononnya kubu persembunyian Osama Ben Laden yang didakwa sebagai ketua al-Qaeda yang dituduh melakukan teror di AS pada 11 September 2001. Negara itu juga jadi sasaran kerana kononnya memberikan perlindungan kepada al-Qaeda.
Akibatnya, Afghanistan diperangi secara semberono sehingga jadi padang jarak padang tekukur dan rakyat jelatanya ramai yang terkorban dan cedera parah. PAG di Afghanistan juga menyebabkan pertukaran rejim. Negara itu terus bergolak hingga ke hari ini.
Mulai Januari 2002, AS membuka medan tempur PAG yang kedua. Kali ini AS mengerahkan tenteranya berpangkalan di selatan Filipina, di Asia Tenggara. Alasannya adalah untuk menghapuskan militen Islam di wilayah itu kerana dituduh jadi sekutu rapat al-Qaeda di Asia Tenggara.
Akibatnya, mulai saat itu selatan Filipina pun mula bergolak dan sering bermandi darah. Akibatnya empat siri pengeboman berlaku di Indonesia - di Bali pada 12 Oktober 2002 dan 1 Oktober 2005 dan di Jakarta pada 5 Ogos 2003 dan 9 September 2004 – di mana sasarannya adalah warga asing dan kepentingan asing. Seluruh keganasan ini kononnya angkara Jemaah Islamiah (JI). Akibatnya, hingga ke hari ini wilayah Islam di selatan Thailand juga terus bermandi darah kononnya angkara PULO.
Medan tempur PAG yang ketiga adalah di Asia Barat. Maka, mulai 19 Mac 2003, tentera AS dan sekutunya pun menyerang dan menjajah Iraq, kononnya untuk menumpaskan negara itu yang didakwa mempunyai WMD.
Hingga ke hari ini tiada satu pun WMD ditemui di Iraq. Tetapi, Iraq sudah pun menjalani pertukaran rejim, Saddam Hussein sudah dihukum gantung sampai mati, puak syiah dan sunni terus bertelagah dan rakyat jelatanya terus bermandi darah.
Pada malam 26 November 2008, beberapa siri pengeboman dan tembak menembak berlaku di dua hotel antarabangsa serta beberapa lokasi strategik di Mumbai, India, di Asia Selatan. 160 orang dikatakan terkorban dan lebih 300 lagi cedera parah.
Dengan sekelip mata, jentera propaganda barat pun menuduh bahawa keganasan itu adalah angkara sebuah pertubuhan Islam yang dikenali sebagai Deccan Mujahidin.
Maka, soalnya di sini, adakah tragedi di Mumbai ini akan mendorong AS dan sekutunya menjadikan Asia Selatan sebagai medan tempur PAG yang keempat.
Jika hakikatnya demikian, maka seluruh wilayah Islam di benua Asia – Asia Tengah mulai Oktober 2001, Asia Tenggara mulai Januari 2002, Asia Barat mulai Mac 2003 dan Asia Selatan mulai November 2008 – pun menjadi medan tempur ciptaan AS.
Dengan itu, negara atau wilayah Islam manakah yang akan jadi sasaran khusus PAG menerusi pembukaan medan tempur di Asia Selatan ini kelak? Pakistan atau Khasmir? Atas alasan apa pula medan tempur ini dibuka?
Akhir sekali, kita perlu insaf bahawa PAG adalah peperangan yang dilakukan oleh AS dan sekutunya secara preemtif, tanpa restu PBB, tanpa musuh yang jelas dan tanpa alasan yang serupa. Pada waktu yang sama, jangan mudah kita terpengaruh bahawa seluruh keganasan yang mengiringi kewujudan medan tempur PAG sejak 2001 hingga sekarang, atau keganasan yang berlaku setelah pembukaan sesuatu medan tempur PAG, adalah angkara teroris Islam yang kononnya bersekutu dengan al-Qaeda.
Webster Griffin Tarpley dalam bukunya 9/11 Synthetic Terror telah merumuskan bahawa seluruh keganasan yang kononnya dilakukan oleh teroris Islam antarabangsa sejak 2001 hingga hari ini adalah angkara teroris upahan yang melaksanakan operasi bendera palsu bagi pihak pelbagai agensi perisikan barat semata-mata untuk memfitnahkan umat Islam.
Sebab itulah berpuluh-puluh lagi buku mengenai PAG dan Tragedi 911 hari ini merumuskan bahawa PAG bukannya untuk membanteras keganasan teroris Islam, tetapi peperangan yang dilaksanakan untuk memudahkan teroris upahan melakukan keganasan bagi membolehkan kuasa barat tertentu mencapai agenda rahsianya di wilayah yang menjadi medan tempur PAG.
Apa pun Noam Chomsky dalam bukunya Hegemony Or Survival: America’s Quest For Global Dominance pernah mengatakan bahawa di sebalik sesuatu peperangan adalah tersembunyi pelbagai agenda, termasuklah matlamat mengembangkan industri dan perniagaan yang berkaitan dengan peperangan itu sendiri.
Maka, mungkinkah ini antara agenda rahsia di sebalik PAG di abad ke-21? Mungkin benarkah antara lain-lain agenda PAG adalah usaha mewujudkan semula hegemoni ketenteraan, Fikir-fikirkanlah dengan sepenuh keinsafan! – diposkan daripada Tehran, Iran
Peristiwa keganasan berdarah di New York dan Washington DC pada 11 September 2001 - dikenali sebagai tragedi 911 - telah menyebabkan Amerika Syarikat (AS) melancarkan Perang Antiterorisme Global (PAG) kononnya untuk menghapuskan terorisme Islam antarabangsa.
Anehnya, seluruh medan tempur PAG ini adalah di pelbagai wilayah Islam di benua Asia. Ia membuktikan pemilihan medan tempur ini adalah dirancang secara teliti dan menyeluruh dengan beberapa agenda penuh rahsia.
Medan tempur PAG yang pertama adalah di Asia Tengah. Mulai 24 Oktober 2001, tentera AS dan sekutunya pun menyerang Afghanistan. Alasannya, negara itu kononnya kubu persembunyian Osama Ben Laden yang didakwa sebagai ketua al-Qaeda yang dituduh melakukan teror di AS pada 11 September 2001. Negara itu juga jadi sasaran kerana kononnya memberikan perlindungan kepada al-Qaeda.
Akibatnya, Afghanistan diperangi secara semberono sehingga jadi padang jarak padang tekukur dan rakyat jelatanya ramai yang terkorban dan cedera parah. PAG di Afghanistan juga menyebabkan pertukaran rejim. Negara itu terus bergolak hingga ke hari ini.
Mulai Januari 2002, AS membuka medan tempur PAG yang kedua. Kali ini AS mengerahkan tenteranya berpangkalan di selatan Filipina, di Asia Tenggara. Alasannya adalah untuk menghapuskan militen Islam di wilayah itu kerana dituduh jadi sekutu rapat al-Qaeda di Asia Tenggara.
Akibatnya, mulai saat itu selatan Filipina pun mula bergolak dan sering bermandi darah. Akibatnya empat siri pengeboman berlaku di Indonesia - di Bali pada 12 Oktober 2002 dan 1 Oktober 2005 dan di Jakarta pada 5 Ogos 2003 dan 9 September 2004 – di mana sasarannya adalah warga asing dan kepentingan asing. Seluruh keganasan ini kononnya angkara Jemaah Islamiah (JI). Akibatnya, hingga ke hari ini wilayah Islam di selatan Thailand juga terus bermandi darah kononnya angkara PULO.
Medan tempur PAG yang ketiga adalah di Asia Barat. Maka, mulai 19 Mac 2003, tentera AS dan sekutunya pun menyerang dan menjajah Iraq, kononnya untuk menumpaskan negara itu yang didakwa mempunyai WMD.
Hingga ke hari ini tiada satu pun WMD ditemui di Iraq. Tetapi, Iraq sudah pun menjalani pertukaran rejim, Saddam Hussein sudah dihukum gantung sampai mati, puak syiah dan sunni terus bertelagah dan rakyat jelatanya terus bermandi darah.
Pada malam 26 November 2008, beberapa siri pengeboman dan tembak menembak berlaku di dua hotel antarabangsa serta beberapa lokasi strategik di Mumbai, India, di Asia Selatan. 160 orang dikatakan terkorban dan lebih 300 lagi cedera parah.
Dengan sekelip mata, jentera propaganda barat pun menuduh bahawa keganasan itu adalah angkara sebuah pertubuhan Islam yang dikenali sebagai Deccan Mujahidin.
Maka, soalnya di sini, adakah tragedi di Mumbai ini akan mendorong AS dan sekutunya menjadikan Asia Selatan sebagai medan tempur PAG yang keempat.
Jika hakikatnya demikian, maka seluruh wilayah Islam di benua Asia – Asia Tengah mulai Oktober 2001, Asia Tenggara mulai Januari 2002, Asia Barat mulai Mac 2003 dan Asia Selatan mulai November 2008 – pun menjadi medan tempur ciptaan AS.
Dengan itu, negara atau wilayah Islam manakah yang akan jadi sasaran khusus PAG menerusi pembukaan medan tempur di Asia Selatan ini kelak? Pakistan atau Khasmir? Atas alasan apa pula medan tempur ini dibuka?
Akhir sekali, kita perlu insaf bahawa PAG adalah peperangan yang dilakukan oleh AS dan sekutunya secara preemtif, tanpa restu PBB, tanpa musuh yang jelas dan tanpa alasan yang serupa. Pada waktu yang sama, jangan mudah kita terpengaruh bahawa seluruh keganasan yang mengiringi kewujudan medan tempur PAG sejak 2001 hingga sekarang, atau keganasan yang berlaku setelah pembukaan sesuatu medan tempur PAG, adalah angkara teroris Islam yang kononnya bersekutu dengan al-Qaeda.
Webster Griffin Tarpley dalam bukunya 9/11 Synthetic Terror telah merumuskan bahawa seluruh keganasan yang kononnya dilakukan oleh teroris Islam antarabangsa sejak 2001 hingga hari ini adalah angkara teroris upahan yang melaksanakan operasi bendera palsu bagi pihak pelbagai agensi perisikan barat semata-mata untuk memfitnahkan umat Islam.
Sebab itulah berpuluh-puluh lagi buku mengenai PAG dan Tragedi 911 hari ini merumuskan bahawa PAG bukannya untuk membanteras keganasan teroris Islam, tetapi peperangan yang dilaksanakan untuk memudahkan teroris upahan melakukan keganasan bagi membolehkan kuasa barat tertentu mencapai agenda rahsianya di wilayah yang menjadi medan tempur PAG.
Apa pun Noam Chomsky dalam bukunya Hegemony Or Survival: America’s Quest For Global Dominance pernah mengatakan bahawa di sebalik sesuatu peperangan adalah tersembunyi pelbagai agenda, termasuklah matlamat mengembangkan industri dan perniagaan yang berkaitan dengan peperangan itu sendiri.
Maka, mungkinkah ini antara agenda rahsia di sebalik PAG di abad ke-21? Mungkin benarkah antara lain-lain agenda PAG adalah usaha mewujudkan semula hegemoni ketenteraan, Fikir-fikirkanlah dengan sepenuh keinsafan! – diposkan daripada Tehran, Iran
10 comments:
Datuk,
Musuh Islam yang tak nampak tak nyata adalah Iblis .musuk yang nyata ialah Yahudi...tapi yahudi mengunakan pihak yg lain sebagai bonekanya...
percayalah semuanya berlaku adalah perancangan Yahudi..."the goverment above the other goverments" siapa kalau tidak Israel?
Yang pelik nya kerajaan Negara Arab sendiri rata rata sudah jadi "the other goverments' bawah kawalan America /yahudi.
Sebab itu bagi Yahudi siapa yang jadi President AS tak menjadi satu masalah..Siapa saja akan akhirnya tunduk kepadanya...polisi terhadap Islam sama...
Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,
Irrational Euphoria and Keynes
I see few signs of sudden or dramatic developments anywhere. Riots and revolutions there may be, but not such, at present, as to have fundamental significance. Against political tyranny and injustice Revolution is a weapon. But what counsels of hope can Revolution offer to sufferers from economic privation, which does not arise out of the injustices of distribution but is general? The only safeguard against Revolution in Central Europe is indeed the fact that, even to the minds of men who are desperate, Revolution offers no prospect of improvement whatever. There may, therefore, be ahead of us a long, silent process of semi-starvation, and of a gradual, steady lowering of the standards of life and comfort. The bankruptcy and decay of Europe, if we allow it to proceed, will affect every one in the long-run, but perhaps not in a way that is striking or immediate.
This has one fortunate side. We may still have time to reconsider our courses and to view the world with new eyes. For the immediate future events are taking charge, and the near destiny of Europe is no longer in the hands of any man. The events of the coming year will not be shaped by the deliberate acts of statesmen, but by the hidden currents, flowing continually beneath the surface of political history, of which no one can predict the outcome. In one way only can we influence these hidden currents,—by setting in motion those forces of instruction and imagination which change opinion. The assertion of truth, the unveiling of illusion, the dissipation of hate, the enlargement and instruction of men's hearts and minds, must be the means. - The Economic Consequences of the Peace by John Maynard Keynes
Al Qaeda's economic war against the United States
Although battlefield victories are crucial, history shows that global wars have been decided on a different kind of front: the war between economic powers. World War II soldiers clashed on the beaches of Normandy and Guadalcanal, but only when the German and Japanese war industries ran out of cash and raw materials did the wheels of the Whehrmacht and the Imperial Army finally grind to a halt. The Cold War could have gone on for decades if not for the depletion of the Kremlin's coffers.
The war on radical Islam is no different.
Greenspan warns of worst crisis since 1945
Alan Greenspan
Financial Times
03.17.2008
The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second world war. It will end eventually when home prices stabilise and with them the value of equity in homes supporting troubled mortgage securities.
Home price stabilisation will restore much-needed clarity to the marketplace because losses will be realised rather than prospective. The major source of contagion will be removed. Financial institutions will then recapitalise or go out of business. Trust in the solvency of remaining counterparties will be gradually restored and issuance of loans and securities will slowly return to normal. Although inventories of vacant single-family homes – those belonging to builders and investors – have recently peaked, until liquidation of these inventories proceeds in earnest, the level at which home prices will stabilise remains problematic...
The crisis will leave many casualties. Particularly hard hit will be much of today’s financial risk-valuation system, significant parts of which failed under stress. Those of us who look to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder equity have to be in a state of shocked disbelief. But I hope that one of the casualties will not be reliance on counterparty surveillance, and more generally financial self-regulation, as the fundamental balance mechanism for global finance.
The problems, at least in the early stages of this crisis, were most pronounced among banks whose regulatory oversight has been elaborate for years. To be sure, the systems of setting bank capital requirements, both economic and regulatory, which have developed over the past two decades will be overhauled substantially in light of recent experience. Indeed, private investors are already demanding larger capital buffers and collateral, and the mavens convened under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements will surely amend the newly minted Basel II international regulatory accord. Also being questioned, tangentially, are the mathematically elegant economic forecasting models that once again have been unable to anticipate a financial crisis or the onset of recession.
Credit market systems and their degree of leverage and liquidity are rooted in trust in the solvency of counterparties. That trust was badly shaken on August 9 2007 when BNP Paribas revealed large unanticipated losses on US subprime securities. Risk management systems – and the models at their core – were supposed to guard against outsized losses. How did we go so wrong?
The essential problem is that our models – both risk models and econometric models – as complex as they have become, are still too simple to capture the full array of governing variables that drive global economic reality. A model, of necessity, is an abstraction from the full detail of the real world. In line with the time-honoured observation that diversification lowers risk, computers crunched reams of historical data in quest of negative correlations between prices of tradeable assets; correlations that could help insulate investment portfolios from the broad swings in an economy. When such asset prices, rather than offsetting each other’s movements, fell in unison on and following August 9 last year, huge losses across virtually all risk-asset classes ensued.
The most credible explanation of why risk management based on state-of-the-art statistical models can perform so poorly is that the underlying data used to estimate a model’s structure are drawn generally from both periods of euphoria and periods of fear, that is, from regimes with importantly different dynamics.
The contraction phase of credit and business cycles, driven by fear, have historically been far shorter and far more abrupt than the expansion phase, which is driven by a slow but cumulative build-up of euphoria. Over the past half-century, the American economy was in contraction only one-seventh of the time. But it is the onset of that one-seventh for which risk management must be most prepared. Negative correlations among asset classes, so evident during an expansion, can collapse as all asset prices fall together, undermining the strategy of improving risk/reward trade-offs through diversification.
If we could adequately model each phase of the cycle separately and divine the signals that tell us when the shift in regimes is about to occur, risk management systems would be improved significantly. One difficult problem is that much of the dubious financial-market behaviour that chronically emerges during the expansion phase is the result not of ignorance of badly underpriced risk, but of the concern that unless firms participate in a current euphoria, they will irretrievably lose market share.
Risk management seeks to maximise risk-adjusted rates of return on equity; often, in the process, underused capital is considered “waste”. Gone are the days when banks prided themselves on triple-A ratings and sometimes hinted at hidden balance-sheet reserves (often true) that conveyed an aura of invulnerability. Today, or at least prior to August 9 2007, the assets and capital that define triple-A status, or seemed to, entailed too high a competitive cost.
I do not say that the current systems of risk management or econometric forecasting are not in large measure soundly rooted in the real world. The exploration of the benefits of diversification in risk-management models is unquestionably sound and the use of an elaborate macroeconometric model does enforce forecasting discipline. It requires, for example, that saving equal investment, that the marginal propensity to consume be positive, and that inventories be non-negative. These restraints, among others, eliminated most of the distressing inconsistencies of the unsophisticated forecasting world of a half century ago.
But these models do not fully capture what I believe has been, to date, only a peripheral addendum to business-cycle and financial modelling – the innate human responses that result in swings between euphoria and fear that repeat themselves generation after generation with little evidence of a learning curve. Asset-price bubbles build and burst today as they have since the early 18th century, when modern competitive markets evolved. To be sure, we tend to label such behavioural responses as non-rational. But forecasters’ concerns should be not whether human response is rational or irrational, only that it is observable and systematic.
This, to me, is the large missing “explanatory variable” in both risk-management and macroeconometric models. Current practice is to introduce notions of “animal spirits”, as John Maynard Keynes put it, through “add factors”. That is, we arbitrarily change the outcome of our model’s equations. Add-factoring, however, is an implicit recognition that models, as we currently employ them, are structurally deficient; it does not sufficiently address the problem of the missing variable.
We will never be able to anticipate all discontinuities in financial markets. Discontinuities are, of necessity, a surprise. Anticipated events are arbitraged away. But if, as I strongly suspect, periods of euphoria are very difficult to suppress as they build, they will not collapse until the speculative fever breaks on its own. Paradoxically, to the extent risk management succeeds in identifying such episodes, it can prolong and enlarge the period of euphoria. But risk management can never reach perfection. It will eventually fail and a disturbing reality will be laid bare, prompting an unexpected and sharp discontinuous response.
In the current crisis, as in past crises, we can learn much, and policy in the future will be informed by these lessons. But we cannot hope to anticipate the specifics of future crises with any degree of confidence. Thus it is important, indeed crucial, that any reforms in, and adjustments to, the structure of markets and regulation not inhibit our most reliable and effective safeguards against cumulative economic failure: market flexibility and open competition.
The writer is former chairman of the US Federal Reserve and author of ‘The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World’
Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,
The Art of Obaman Negotiation
(melayu mudah lupa, caesar)
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline: the Baloch wildcard
For both energy hungry India and its swiftly growing neighbor, Pakistan, the need for natural gas is more pressing than ever. Pakistan has one of the world’s fastest growing populations and its demand for gas will expand significantly over the next two decades. India’s gas demand will almost double by 2015 and due to the decline of its reserves it will be forced to import increasing amounts of gas. As the world’s second largest gas reserve, Iran is the most geographically convenient supplier of gas to both countries.
India considered three transport routes for gas from Iran: shipping it through the Arabian Sea on board tankers in the form of LNG, sending it through a deep sea pipeline, or alternatively transporting it on land via a 1700-mile pipeline from Iran’s South Pars field to India. The latter option means 475 miles of the pipeline will pass through Balochistan in southern Pakistan.
A land based pipeline would be four times cheaper than any other option, even after taking into account transit fee payments to Pakistan. But for a long time political tensions between India and Pakistan made it difficult for Delhi to accept an energy project that would create dependence on a neighbor with whom its relations are far from stable. Recent improvement in the relations between the two neighbors has bought India to finally consider joining forces with Pakistan for the mutually beneficial pipeline project, estimated to cost around $4 billion. A third of the gas would be delivered to Pakistan and the rest to India.
For Iran, India’s participation in the project is of paramount importance. In addition to a broader market for its gas Iran hopes to gain political support from India as it is facing strong international pressure to terminate its nuclear program. In return for India's agreement to buy large quantities of gas, Iran has awarded Indian gas companies major service contracts and also granted them participation in refining and other energy related projects to the tune of $40 billion. Iran’s relations with Pakistan are also strategically important. With American troops stationed in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is trying to check U.S. influence in the region by strengthening its ties with Pakistan, one of America’s most needed allies in the war on terror. The Pakistanis, for their part, would like to see their territory used as a transit route to export natural gas to India. This would not only guarantee a source of income for them but also increase stability in the region. Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline is "a win-win proposition for Iran, India, and Pakistan," that could serve as a durable confidence-building measure, creating strong economic links and business partnerships among the three countries.
But this win-win proposition seems to be threatened by terrorists. A few days after Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh arrived in New Delhi to discuss the future of the pipeline, terrorists in Pakistan blew up two gas pipelines sending a message to all parties involved that the "pipeline of peace" might be anything but peaceful.
The area of the Balochistan-Punjab border where the pipeline is supposed to run is one of Pakistan's poorest areas and its most restive province. In recent years it has been a battleground of private militias belonging to Baloch tribes. Sporadic armed clashes resulted in attacks against water pipelines, power transmission lines and gas installations. Yet, the region strategically important due to its large reserves of oil and gas. But these riches did little for the Baloch tribesmen. Over the years Islamabad has failed to provide a fair share of the oil and gas wealth. Lack of economic progress and a deep sense of disaffection has contributed to the distrust between the federal government and the Baloch people. As a result, the tribes now oppose any energy projects in their area. In January 2003, sabotage of a gas pipeline from Sui cut off supply to the Punjab. Later, in June, a wave of attacks against gas installations caused the government to send troops to protect the installations. For the rest of 2003 and the following year the confrontation was defused but the underlying grievances of the local population were not addressed. To calm the area Islamabad recently added carrots to its policy of sticks by increasing investment in regional development projects. However, it seems that violence has resurfaced and the region is sliding into a near war situation.
On the night of January 8 terrorists belonging to the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF) fired rockets at the pipeline and exchanged gunfire with the security forces for several hours. During the fire exchange the pipeline caught fire, disrupting supply to a power plant. Six people were killed. In a separate incident the BLF launched an attack on the pipeline close to Sui township, 250 miles north of Karachi. This area alone produces about 45 percent of Pakistan’s total gas production. Some rockets also exploded close to the main pipeline supplying gas to Sindh and Punjab provinces but did not cause any damage. On January 11 Baloch gunmen stormed facilities operated by state-run Pakistan Petroleum Ltd (PPL) in Sui. The gunmen overpowered the guards and damaged pipelines and a purification plant. Gunmen also Kidnapped 10 employees of the Water and Power Development Authority (APDA), Pakistan’s main water and power utility. The attacks disrupted gas and power production as well work in fertilizer and chemical plants.
Many in the region believe that the recent attacks in Balochistan province are meant to sabotage the pipeline project as well as other projects connecting Sui gas installations with the Turkmenistan gas fields. If true, these pipeline attacks are unsettling and will raise to the surface India's concerns about the reliability of the project. The possibility of sabotage of the proposed Iran-India pipeline by militant groups in Pakistan is becoming increasingly feasible as terrorists learn from their allies in Iraq about the strategic gain in conducting a sustained sabotage campaign against oil infrastructure. This is especially true after last month’s exhortation by Osama bin Ladin to his cohorts to target oil pipelines in the Persian Gulf. In the next few weeks India will have to make a final determination if it wants to join the pipeline project. If Pakistan truly wants India to share the burden of the project it should demonstrate to Delhi that it can ensure security and stability along the pipeline route.
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf warned the Baloch tribesmen to stop their violence, threatening to use force: "Don't push us... it is not the 1970s, and this time you won't even know what has hit you," he said, referring to a crackdown in the 1970s on separatists in the area. As we have seen in other parts of the world where pipelines are under attack, ending the onslaught may well prove to be mission impossible. Nevertheless Islamabad has already indicated that the pipeline project will be pursued even were India to decide not to join.
Gal Luft is Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.
Foreign policy: Obama
Obama Afghanistan policy criticised
By Edward Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner
Published: July 31 2008 23:57 | Last updated: July 31 2008 23:57
The US should avoid suggesting that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq will be followed by a surge of troops in Afghanistan, according to Jim Webb, the Democratic senator for Virginia.
Fresh from ruling himself out as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, Mr Webb’s comments come as an implied criticism of the Democratic party’s orthodoxy on Iraq and Afghanistan – including Mr Obama’s own stance.
Following his recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr Obama welcomed growing support for his plan to set a timeline for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq and said the US “should seize the moment” to build up its presence in Afghanistan.
“The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan,” he said.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Webb politely disagreed, without mentioning Mr Obama or other Democratic colleagues by name. “We should be very careful from making it sound like we are withdrawing from Iraq because we have to build up in Afghanistan,” said Mr Webb. “You’re starting to see people say this when they weren’t saying it before.
“We tend to be country-specific when we talk about how to defeat international terrorism rather than looking at the whole dynamic. The dynamic is that terrorism works the seams of international law. We can’t create stable societies in places like Afghanistan . . . that can’t be our objective.”
A former secretary of the navy in the Reagan administration and a decorated Vietnam veteran, Mr Webb’s views on defence are taken seriously by colleagues. His son, a US marine, has just returned from Iraq. Although he supports withdrawal from Iraq, he has not offered a timeline. He believes withdrawal should only take place after a new administration has launched a “diplomatic surge” in the region, as suggested almost two years ago by James Baker and Lee Hamilton in their report on Iraq.
He said that the US could be about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq. “You have to have an articulable end-point,” he said. “We’ve got to clearly understand what it is that the US wants to do in Afghanistan and understand what we can do.” ...
Given that Mr Obama is African-American, Mr Webb’s thesis is about to receive the ultimate test. Mr Webb says that the Democrats alienated working-class voters by following the dictates of “special interest groups”. In contrast, the Republicans tailored specific social conservative appeals to win their support. “Karl Rove [George W. Bush’s electoral maestro] knows this culture inside out and the Democrats don’t even know it exists,” he said.
In order to win back states such as Virginia for the Democrats in November and take the White House, Mr Obama will need to show a cultural affinity with them, says Mr Webb.
“They want to know he [Mr Obama] understands them and is like them in the way he approaches the issues they face – it is an affinity issue,” he said. “He’s got a pretty good shot. The day after the primaries were resolved he started off in Bristol, Virginia, which is the birthplace of country music, so that was a very good gesture.”
Nota:
Why Afghanistan? After Iraq it is only the logical step, dont' you think, Kuda Kepang?
Once you have Afghanistan you control the world...well you control China, India, Pakistan and Iran. Alexander The Great would have been pleased, too.
We must remember to succeed in the effort for a very strong hold on Afghanistan you must have a strong economy, a willing military and Pakistan on your side. Oh the change we need, indeed.
So how do America-EU-Japan have a strong economy with this fortunate Wall Sreet Financial Crisis and a favorable Recession 2009-2012? Why you know the answer to that rebuilding of Modern Democratic Iraq and Afghanistan.
The NATO military has learn from the Soviet Debacle in Afghanistan is what I say, Kuda Kepang.
Salam Datuk,
Secara amnya saya bersetuju dgn pendedahan dan pandangan Datuk.
Namun masih ada yg tersembunyi dr capaian ilmu dan teknologi Barat iaitu ilmu ilham dan teknologi roh yg bakal mengejutkan kekuatan Barat.
http://nawawidahalan.blogspot.com
Dato,
Industri Kelengkapan Perang bukan kecil. Ada teknologi tinggi dan research yang dalam. Kosnya sangat tinggi.
Peniaga runcit pun ada marketing strategi sendiri, untuk pastikan kelansungan perniagaan. Untung yang maksima adalah target semua peniaga.
Industri Kelengkapan Perang juga tidak terkecuali.Bila ada perang industri itu akan berkembang. Barangan dalam stor perlu dikeluarkan untuk mengisi barangan baru.
Suatu masa dulu Sadam bantu buang stok lama kelengkapan perang waktu bersenda gurau dengan Iran.
Amerika juga telah buang sebahagian besar stok lama di Afghanistan dan Iraq.
Perang perlu ada untuk mengekalkan industri kelengkapan perang. Pekerja kilangnya juga mahu menuntut bonus dan kenaikan gaji.
Dulu masa Perang Dunia, perang dibiayai secara hutang dulu bayar kemudian oleh industri tersebut.
Waktu Julius Ceaser menapak didunia lama, ada sponsor yang menyediakan balatentera dan kelengkapan. Bayarannya adalah kemudian.
Begitulah dunia ini dikawal. Undi dalam pilihanraya hanyalah topeng demokrasi yang cantik.
terima kasih.
Sdr Kuda Kepang,
Membankrupkan Dunia
(cara imf)
Saudi king says oil should be $75 per barrel
CAIRO, Egypt – Saudi Arabia's king says the price of oil should be $75 a barrel, much higher than it is now, but his oil minister indicated Saturday that no measures will likely be taken until OPEC meets again next month.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi said that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will "do what needs to be done" to shore up falling oil prices when the group meets Dec. 17 in Algeria, but for now it was "too early."
Other ministers at the hastily convened OPEC meeting in Cairo did not entirely rule out cuts, including Libyan oil official, Shokri Ghanem, who, ahead of the meeting, said "all options are open."
But Naimi, whose country is the world's largest oil producer, said the bloc needs to wait until the Algeria meeting to assess the impact of earlier production cuts.
Naimi's comments came after Saudi King Abdullah told the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Seyassah in an interview published Saturday that oil should be priced at $75 a barrel.
"We believe the fair price for oil is $75 a barrel," he said, without saying how the price could be raised.
The price of crude stood at about $147 a barrel in mid-July. On Friday, the U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude for January delivery was trading at about $54 per barrel.
The king was echoed by Qatar's Oil Minister Abdullah Bin Hamad al-Attiya, who told the Arab news channel Al-Arabiya that prices needed to rise to guarantee investment into the oil sector.
"The price between 70 to 80 (dollars a barrel) is the one encouraging in investment and developing new or current oil fields," he said. "It falls below 70 (dollars), the investment would freeze, which will lead to a crisis in supply in the future."
Nigerian Oil Minister Odein Ajumogobia also said they would be "very happy" with oil at $75.
The cartel has already held an emergency meeting in Vienna on Oct. 24 to announce a production cut of 1.5 million barrels per day...
Macam mana nak naikkan harga minyak dan bagaimana Budget 2009 hinggalah 2012. Kuda Kepang?
(apakah betul cara saya berfikir sekiranya saya bertanyakan sekiranya MoF2 itu masih tak pandai-pandai jualbeli ringgit? dan tidak ada kegemaran lain baginya seketagih permainan ini? Apa patut kita siasat?)
Terima Kasih
Salam Datuk,
Datuk sedang berada disebuah negara yang digelar US paksi kejahatan (Iran). Saya begitu kagum kekuatan fizikal dan mental Iran menghadapi tekanan dunia bermula dari perang yang dipaksa iaitu Iran-Iraq yang menyaksikan Iran berhadapan seorang diri menghadapi dunia Arab yang rata-rata dibelakang US dengan segala propaganda buruk terhadapnya termasuk menyemai perpecahan sunni-syiah.
Setiap kali saya disana saya akan mencari maklumat dari para revolusiner Iran (yang anti-shah Iran yang mendokong (khatul Imam) baca: yang mengikuti jalur Imam Khomeini sekarang Ali Khamanei bagi mencari apa rahsia kekuatan mental dan fizikal mereka. Kecintaan mereka terhadap pemimpin amat kuat kerana rata-rata pemimpin mereka hidup serba sederhana dan yang penting "cakap serupa bikin". Lihat sahaja Ali Khamanei dan Presiden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad..hampir pasti tiada pemimpin seperti itu di Malaysia hatta dikalangan kepimpinan parti Islam atau ulama Malaysia dalam keilmuannya dan kesederhanaanya.
Saya amat berharap Datuk dapat sesuatu dari sana dan kongsi bersama kita di sini kelak.
Kita lihat bagaimana Iran menyemai semangat ke atas Hizbullah di Lebanon yang menzahirkan kepada kita bagaimana wujudnya "link" solidariti Islam diantara mereka.
Kita harus serius mengkali ini, bagaimana Israel gagal berhadapan dengan Hizbullah yang pro-Iran itu.
Iran ada sesuatu untuk kita kaji Datuk.
Teringat sebuah hadis yang menyatakan apabila Arab berpaling terhadap Islam Allah akan gantikan dengan kaum lain. Sahabat bertanya, siapakah kaum itu? Rasullulah sambil menepuk bahu Salma Al-Farisi seraya berkata: " Salman dan kaumnya"....Iran.
Datuk Ron,
Sebagai ummah yang sabar dan beriman, kita senantiasa sedar dan siap siaga melawan penindasan keatas keamanan alam sejagat, kerana islamlah ugama akhir zaman yang tidak boleh dinafikan oleh semua umat didunia ini sama ada islam atau bukan islam.
Sudah tentu pihak yang setuju dengan hakikat ini akan menentang terus hingga ke akhir zaman.
Jika ada ejen-ejen atau proksi-proksi bagi tujuan ini, sudah tentu ada dengan bukti-nya yang berterusan melawan kebangkitan islam. Dizaman ini dengan peristiwa 911, penaklukan Afghanistan, Iraq dan perang saudara di Somali, peperangan persaudaraan berterusan di Congo dan kini secara terancang di Mumbai India, sudah jelas semua dikaitkan dengan islam, sama ada radikal atau peperangan persaudaraan ianya dijadikan alasan untuk campur tangan oleh kuasa kuasa yang pada hakikatnya musuh.
Oleh yang demikian kita di Malaysia harus siap siaga dan senantiasa sabar didalam menangani kemelut sejagat ini dengan strategi baru, iaitu dengan cara yang diterima oleh mereka yang kononnya ingin membantu mengamankan dunia. Cara perang saraf dengan menyoal tentang iman mereka dan tanya mereka bertubi-tubi tentang keimanan.
Kalau mereka kalah didalam perang saraf ini seperti yang berlaku semasa Nabi Musa as menentang Firaun diistana firaun dengan tatacara perang saraf, ketua ugama firaun sendiri mengalah dan menjadi pengikut Nabi Musa as. Contoh sudah ada maka ikutilah, insya Allah kita akan berjaya.
Pada saya tidak salah bila Najib Tun Razak melantik TDM menjadi menteri mentor kepada kerajaan malaysia. rakyat Malaysia sepatutnya merenung dan menilai dari sudut positif tentang idea TDM, apakah negara-negara luar bita hati kerana menjemput TDM memberi ceramah dalam semua bidang, negara luar merebut peluang untuk mendapat idea dari TDm sedangkan kita sebilangan besar pemimpin dan rakyat malaysia terlalu jijik hendak menggunakan atau mendengar tokoh negarawan kita memberi idea-idea.
Pemimpin malaysia sekarang berada dalam zon selesa kerana hasil usaha TDM. cuma sekarang ni, zon selesa dah bertukar kepada "zon perang antara kaum" setelah jawatan PM telah bertukar tangan.
kita tak boleh sangkal yang segala tindakan oleh "terroris" ini adalah betul angkara terroris ataupun angkara pihak-pihak tertentu bagi kepentingan tersendiri.
ingat lagi pada video kes penyembelihan orang di Iraq?pada mula-mula beberapa video dikeluarkan memang mengejutkan.buat seketika ramai yang mempercayai bahawa penyembelih2 tersebut adalah orang Arab dan Islam.tapi lama-kelamaan ada pula pihak yang tampil memberitahu yang video tersebut diada-adakan yang mereka yang terlibat dalam video tersebut bukan orang Islam dan Arab serta mendakwa mereka yang terlibat sebenarnya adalah orang barat!.
jadi,jangan mudah percaya dengan media-media barat.mungkin mereka ada agenda tersendiri.
Post a Comment