Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 13,814
» Latest member: Samuelmow
» Forum threads: 593
» Forum posts: 2,062

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 36 online users.
» 5 Member(s) | 31 Guest(s)
astoboria, FelipaBenn, quiergegiz, Ralneefly, Samuelmow

Latest Threads
Forum: Alternative therories
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
06-27-2017, 09:00 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 561
Forum: Alternative therories
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
06-25-2017, 12:51 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 5,127
Forum: Alternative therories
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
06-12-2017, 07:46 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 14,587
Forum: Multimedia
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
06-11-2017, 07:16 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 5,305
Forum: Western
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
06-04-2017, 01:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 9,449
Forum: Alternative therories
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
06-04-2017, 12:17 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 207
Forum: Alternative therories
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
06-01-2017, 08:01 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,647
Forum: Alternative therories
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
05-26-2017, 01:22 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 18,436
Forum: Multimedia
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
05-01-2017, 09:21 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 23,889
Forum: Think Tanks (Rest of the world)
Last Post: globalvision2000administrator
04-25-2017, 05:47 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 31,348

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 06-27-2017, 09:00 PM - Forum: Alternative therories - No Replies



It should be clear by now to even the most disinterested global spectator to the protracted carnage of the Syrian Civil War that the governments of the Western world led by the United States of America have instigated and sustained an insurrection against a sovereign country through the use of Islamist proxies. It should also be clear to those who are adequately informed by a suitable range of media sources, that many of the terror attacks which have occurred in both American and Western European locations have been carried out by individuals who have been under the radar of Western security agencies.

Further, the Syrian and other conflicts instigated by the West have created the basis for influxes of refugees as well as new avenues of transit for economic migrants bound for Western Europe. The incessant bombing of Muslim lands for a continuous period of over a decade and a half continues to provide the basis for radicalising segments of the Muslim world. America’s role in the Syrian conflict is risking a war with Russia, a nuclear armed power, which at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria, is part of a coalition involving both Iran and Hezbollah that is attempting to suppress the Islamist insurgents.

Yet, among the population of Western countries, there remains a perplexing mixture of ignorance and indifference about the policy of their governments calculated use of “Islamic militants” both at home and abroad. Unless a strong consensus arises in the form of dedicated mass protest movements by informed members of their populations and pressure is brought by coalitions of principled and non-partisan political actors, the West will continue to embroil itself in an enduring series of conflicts in the Muslim world.

The moral, financial and security ramifications are clear: the continuing cycle of human destruction, the ever increasing risk of terror atrocities, the burdens imposed by military expenditure as well as the threats to social cohesion caused by migration from affected countries, cumulatively represent a self-inflicted conundrum from which it will become difficult to be extricated unless there is a radical overhaul of Western foreign policy.

Much of the public debate in the United States about the rise of groups such as the so-called Islamic State often takes a partisan slant. For those to the political Right, former US President Barack Obama is the author of the Syrian crisis, while others prefer granting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the dubious accolade of being the ‘Godmother of ISIS’. On the other hand, those on the political Left blame George W. Bush for the Syrian conflict on the basis that the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent sectarian-orientated turmoil led to the development of a range of extremist Sunni Islamist militias. Many of them were linked to the al Qaeda franchise and metastasized most prominently into the Jabhat al Nusra Front and IS.
Another important part of the public discourse, inevitably heightened in the aftermath of the occurrence of each terror atrocity committed in North America or in Western Europe, relates to the issue of whether Islam can be considered to be an ethically sound religion. The consensus among many in the political classes and the media is to insist that terror attacks are perpetrated by a tiny minority of the earth’s reputed 1.6 billion Muslims, while a significantly vocal part of the public contend that the history of Islamic expansion as well as the philosophy of violence expressed by prominent Islamist groups mark it out as anything but a ‘religion of peace’.The debate on Islam is frequently concerned with whether Muslims are assimilable in Western society with the microscope firmly focused on the amount of Muslim refugees seeking or gaining entrance to North American and Western European destinations.

While each aspect of these debates are important in their own right, the compartmentalized nature of the discourse arguably serves as a useful device which distracts the public from grasping the broader picture. For one, attempting to fix the blame for the rise of certain notorious Islamist militias on particular political figures for partisan reasons only serves to obscure the very lengthy history of Western support for militant Islamic groups.

The often bitter exchanges after terror attacks are dominated by issues related to whether Muslim communities resident in the West are sufficiently loyal to their countries of residence. Getting lost in the thicket of argument and counter-argument is a disturbingly consistent feature of many perpetrators having been monitored by relevant state intelligence agencies.

In a similar vein, the worries about Western-bound Muslim refugees tend to disconnect from Western culpability in what may be termed coercive engineered migration. Thus the overall effect of these partisan accusations and disputes present a useful distraction from scrutinising the prevailing overarching policy as well as enabling politicians and security officials to escape accountability for creating the conditions which have brought Islamic fundamentalist terror to the streets of their towns and cities.

Understanding history is important. The role of the United States and its allies in facilitating the weaponising of Islam as a means of obtaining dubious geo-political advantage is a longstanding one. When Wesley Clark, a retired US four-star general admitted that ISIS had been created “with funding from our friends and allies to fight Hezbollah to the death”, on the basis that only fanatics and not idealist-minded recruits could be sufficiently motivated to do so, he was harking to a sentiment long-held by the West in its dealings with the Middle East.

The use of Islamic soldiers was one embraced by Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the SS, who in a January 1944 speech referred to Islam as a “practical and attractive religion for soldiers”. Its promise of paradise and beautiful women to the martyrs of battle was, Himmler felt, “the kind of language a soldier understands”.  Three decades earlier, the use of “medieval thinking” and “superstitious” Mahometans as guerrilla proxies was an idea latched onto by Kaiser Wilhelm II during the First World War as part of the German strategy of revolutionspolitik. This was a policy aimed at encouraging subversion and revolution in the vulnerable regions within the empires against which Germany was waging Welt Kreig.

It was applied by allowing Vladimir Lenin to travel through German territory on a sealed train so that he could reach Russia where he could foment chaos through a Bolshevik uprising and give Germany an advantage on its eastern front. The Germans also scored their prisoner of war camps for Ukrainian prisoners whom they trained and indoctrinated to form an anti-Tsarist ukrainian nationalist army.

The Germans unsuccessfully attempted to apply it by inciting rebellion among the millions of Muslims living under British rule and in the areas bordering British territories. Pamphlets calling for Muslims to form cells which would kill combatant and non-combatant Christian Europeans in the name of jihad were produced.
It was a theme which was fictionalised in the John Buchan novel Greenmantle which was published in 1916. In the book, the character Sir Walter Bullivant, claims that “Islam is a fighting creed, and the mullah still stands in the pulpit with the Koran in one hand and a drawn sword in the other”.

But it did not end in fiction and would not be the exclusive preserve of Germany geo-strategy. British policy-makers saw jihad as means through which Britain could advance its interests against its adversaries. It would use the Ikhwan, the formidable fighting force of the second Saudi emirate to weaken the Ottoman hold on the Arabian Peninsula. The fact that Ibn Saud’s followers were, according to Winston Churchill, “bloodthirsty” and “intolerant” underscored the Ikhwan’s fitness for purpose. The intelligence services of Britain would go on to establish an enduring relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood soon after it was created in the late 1920s.
American support for militant Islamism goes back at least to the 1950s when the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the Muslim Brotherhood as a proxy force in the United States’ ideological war against Soviet communism. The Egyptian-originated organisation was utilised in an effort to undermine the secular government of President Gamal Abdel Nasser which had gravitated to the Soviet Union to acquire military arms and technical expertise for development projects.

The Soviet-Afghan war (December 24, 1979 – February 15, 1989) (Source: WideShut.co.uk)

This ploy of using Islamic combatants lay at the heart of ‘Operation Cyclone’. Among the longest and most expensive of covert operations undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency, it involved funding, arming and training Afghan Mujahideen as a means of weakening the Soviet military after the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

It was the brainchild of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security Advisor to the administration of President Jimmy Carter, but continued by the succeeding administration of President Ronald Reagan. Reagan extended an invitation to key members of the Mujahideen to visit the Oval Office of the White House where they were given a cordial reception at which they were photographed with the president.
While on a state visit to Pakistan in October of 1981, the British Prime Minister, 
Margaret Thatcher, made her way to the Pakistani-Afghan border where she told a gathered group of Mujahideen leaders that “the hearts of the free world are with you”.

A few years after the September 11 atrocity, the Bush administration formulated a re-direction in a Middle Eastern policy geared towards aiding Sunni militants espousing the same Pan-Islamic ideology as al Qaeda as a means of undermining the secular government of Bashar al Assad of Syria.

The Obama administration followed this policy first in its support for the Nato action that led to the overthrow of the secular government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and secondly, in the decision to utilise jihadists in the attempt to overthrow the Assad government under the cover of the so-called Arab Spring. The latter enterprise was undertaken over the objections of several senior military officers at the Pentagon including the head of the Defence Intelligence Agency.

It is important to note that the French government, then led by President Nicolas Sarkozy, took the lead in instigating the Libyan uprising and that the Cameron government of Britain provided special forces soldiers to train and direct operations undertaken by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and al Qaeda-affiliated organisation.

This policy is still intact under the Trump administration. After all, any attack against the Syrian military such as was the case with the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles after a dubious allegation of a chemical attack on civilians and the recent shooting down of a Syrian Air Force jet by an American warplane, is intended to weaken it in the fight against Islamist insurgents. These actions by the United States, including the episode of the alleged mistaken killing of over 60 soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army while it was attempting to dislodge al Nusra fighters from the city of Aleppo all tend to confirm the thesis of the United States functioning as the unofficial air force of the Islamist insurgents.

It is a policy that will be sustained given the continuing priority accorded to the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia. Donald Trump’s decision to make his first foreign visit as president to the desert kingdom, the home of the Wahhabi doctrine of Islam which serves as the inspiration for Islamist death squads in Syria and Islamic terrorists striking at innocent people in the West, is rather telling.
Trump’s castigation of the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran as the “world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism” reeks of deceit and hypocrisy. It is contradicted by a 2013 report by the European Parliament which identified Sunni Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism and a leaked admission by Hillary Clinton that the Saudis “have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth”. Indeed, none of the bombs, bullets or blades used in any of the terror attacks carried out in the West since 9/11 have been done in the name of Iran or Hezbollah. They have been carried out by Sunni extremists influenced by Wahhabist teachings.

The United States has of course acted as the overseer of Saudi funding for Syrian jihadists even though Iran, together with the Syrian Arab Army and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah have soldiers dying every day in the fight against extremists of the sort US Senator John McCain has cosied up to during illegally arranged visits to Syrian territory.

Abdel Hakim Belhadj (credits to the owner of the photo)

McCain, who serves as the Chair of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, was photographed handing Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the leader of the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, with an award in recognition for his part in the overthrow of the Gaddafi government. Echoing Margaret Thatcher’s words of support for the Mujahideen, McCain heaped praise on Belhadj and his group for being fighters in the cause of freedom. And just as several of the groups headed by the warlords Thatcher addressed would form the basis of al Qaeda and the Taliban, so it has been the case that Belhadj became a leading commander of ISIS in Libya.

The Saudis are not alone among America’s Middle Eastern allies in having enabled the Syrian insurrection. Other Gulf Cooperation Council states, most notably Qatar, have played a part as indeed has Turkey – all confirmed by the former US Vice President Joseph Biden. The Syrian rebels have also received support from the state of Israel through cash disbursements, arms supplies and medical assistance. The motivation for the West’s seeking to destroy secular governments such as that of Syria further than the banal rationale of overthrowing a ‘brutal dictator’ skirts over the issue of wanting to build a pipeline from the Gulf through to Turkey via Syria. The fundamental objective of the West in ensuring Israel’s continued regional hegemony is rarely mentioned even though this has been attested to by Roland Dumas, a former French foreign minister, and a leaked email of Hillary Clinton’s which revealed her thinking to be that the overthrow of Assad would help the Israelis in so far as combating the perceived threat posed by Iran.

The debates which center on Muslim extremists growing into a security threat fail to maintain a decent level of scrutiny on the performance of Western intelligence services in the preventing such threats. It should be of great concern to any American citizen that a report published three years ago by Human Rights Watch and Columbia University claimed that all but four of the domestic terrorist incidents occurring in the United States in the decade after the 9/11 attacks were carried out during sting operations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In other words, most of the attacks involved people who were informers or double agents working for the FBI.

The report did not cover the dubious circumstances involving a paid informant infiltrating the group which built the bomb used for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and it excluded the case of Tamerlan Tsarmaev who had not only been on a watchlist and surveilled by the FBI, but who many suspect to have been an informer.

A similar pattern can be seen in Britain where the security services under the watch of Theresa May as both home secretary and prime minister allowed Islamists whose names were on terror watchlists, under surveillance and in some circumstances under control orders (a form of house arrest under UK anti-terror laws), to travel around the European Union and the Middle East with impunity so long as they promised to overthrow secular Arab leaders such as Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria.

This is mirrored in France where, for instance, Mohamed Merah, the man who allegedly carried out terror shootings in Toulouse and Montauban, was claimed by the former head of France’s now defunct Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) to have been a double agent and informer for Direction Centrale du Renseignement Interieur (DCRI), the state intelligence organisation tasked with counter-terrorism and counter-espionage.

It is also worth noting that the terror outrages in London in July of 2005 and in Madrid in March of 2004 involved suspected radicals belonging to al Qaeda-inspired cells who had previously been under state surveillance. While the official argument of strained resources is often brought up as a blanket excuse, the recurrence of these scenarios point to a criminally negligent pattern of handling the surveillance of potential terrorists as well as the reckless managing of informers who ‘go rogue’. And given what is known of certain ‘black operations’ conducted in Western Europe during the Cold War era which had the purpose of manipulating public feeling through acts of terror, a more sinister interpretation cannot be ruled out.

The issues of state facilitation of islamist militias as well as the mishandling of terror suspects ought to raise the concerns of politicians and citizens sufficiently enough to form the basis of hearings by state legislative bodies and pave the way for the setting up of public inquiries. Instead the discourse, with the aid of the mainstream media, is guided towards whether the aftermath of each terror attack should result in the incremental loss of the hard won rights and freedoms of the citizenry of the West.

In Britain, the recent spate of attacks have raised the ante to the extent that there have been calls to introduce internment as well as to censor the internet. France is effectively in a permanent state of emergency. All of this despite the fact that despite the blood and pain inflicted by terror, the statistics continue to show that the average person has a far higher chance of being electrocuted by a bolt of lightning or breaking their neck when getting out of bed.

The history of the West’s dalliances with terror groups is pregnant with instances of blowback. It is widely accepted that the implementation of Operation Cyclone as a means of using Islamists as a tool in weakening the Soviet enemy contributed to the formation of al Qaeda and the development of global jihadism. Those who berate others who link the outrages perpetrated by Islamist terrorists in the West to Western foreign policy are not being realistic. Indeed, there is an ineluctable logic to President Assad’s rebuke to the Turkish President Recep Erdogan for supporting the Islamist insurgents who the Turkish authorities allowed to infiltrate Syria:
It is not possible to put terrorism in your pocket and use it as a card because it is like a scorpion which won’t hesitate to sting you at the first opportunity.

The state is compromised but the continued ignorance of many and the seemingly wilful insouciance of the others mean that the people will stand compromised in the judgement of history if they refrain from pressuring their political leaders to change the state of affairs.

Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 06-16-2017, 08:53 PM - Forum: Alternative therories - Replies (4)

                        SATANIC INFERNO  



Dozens of poor residents were burned to death in a neglected block in Britain’s wealthiest district. The prime minister’s mishandling could help Jeremy Corbyn into power.


LONDON — They have not yet said it in public, but police and firefighters fear this week’s high-rise fire in West London is the most deadly British disaster in a generation.

The list of missing people stretches to 400. Officials say they believe the number of dead is lower than that because they have many instances of duplicated missing-persons reports—but the truth is they have no idea exactly how many people were crammed into the dangerous, outdated public-housing block that stands in London’s richest borough. The average price of a property (taking into account studios, larger apartments, and mansions) is over $1.5 million in Kensington and Chelsea. Neighbors include the royals William, Kate, and Harry.

Yet the poverty-stricken occupants of the doomed tower had begged the authorities to listen to their fears of a major fire for years.

Fed up and in despair, the Grenfell Action Group admitted defeat in November, comparing the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organization to the regime of Kim Jong Un and predicting that only a devastating inferno would force their landlords to act.

“We have blogged many times on the subject of fire safety at Grenfell Tower and we believe that these investigations will become part of damning evidence of the poor safety record of the KCTMO should a fire affect any other of their properties and cause the loss of life that we are predicting,” they wrote last year.

A blaze that is believed to have started in an apartment on one of the lower floors engulfed the building within 20 minutes. Residents who called the emergency services were told to shelter in place rather than try to escape. The authorities now admit that they may never be able to identify some of those victims.

As the smoke and flames grew more intense, some people are believed to have leaped to their deaths from the burning building. Children were thrown from windows to be caught by the crowds below.
Unlike the private high-rises built for wealthier families and businesses in Central London, Grenfell had no sprinkler system and only one staircase. The Times reports Friday that the cladding used in a refurbishment last summer has been banned in the U.S. for use on high-rise buildings. Those overseeing the construction reportedly opted to buy the $28 panels instead of the $30 fireproof panels; that decision is estimated to have saved around $6,000 in total.

With sporadic fires still burning in the blackened remains of the building—where at least 30 people are confirmed to have died—Britain’s leading politicians arrived on the scene Thursday. Their instinctive approaches to the horror could hardly have been more different.

Prime Minister Theresa May, who is trying to form a minority Conservative government after last week’s humbling election, refused to meet any of the survivors or members of the devastated community—presumably for fear of a hostile reception that would be captured by the cameras. Instead she met privately with the first responders who had risked their lives to deal with the blaze, then got back into her armored car and raced home to Downing Street.

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s left-wing leader, took an altogether different approach. He was seen hugging survivors, taking questions from infuriated residents, and demanding action to re-house those who have lost everything. As one woman broke down in tears sharing her fears for a missing 12-year-old girl, Corbyn put his arm around her shoulder and pulled her in tight. Another woman told Corbyn: “Theresa May was here but she didn’t speak to any of us. She was shit.”

Just as she flunked her first prime ministerial election campaign, May has misread the mood of the public.

She has called for a full public inquiry into the fire, but the righteous anger brought to the fore by an avoidable catastrophe on this scale cannot be quelled so easily. Her failure to meet those affected by the disaster has drawn inevitable comparisons to George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

Michael Portillo, the former deputy leader of the Conservative party, said she should have been with the residents. “Alas Mrs. May has been what she has [been like] for the last five or six weeks. She wanted an entirely controlled situation in which she didn't use her humanity,” he told the BBC.

With May’s grip on power so weak after an election, the Conservatives are terrified that Corbyn’s populist Labour Party stands on the brink of power. If the minority government falls, it is now possible to imagine that Labour would secure the most seats in an upcoming election.

Emboldened by last week’s results in which 40 percent of voters backed a radical left-wing Labour manifesto, Corbyn raised the prospect of seizing empty houses owned by foreign investors in order to shelter those families who were burned out of their homes high above London’s billionaire paradise.

“The south part of Kensington is incredibly wealthy, it’s the wealthiest part of the country. The ward where this fire took place is, I think the poorest ward in the whole country,” Corbyn said in the House of Commons on Thursday. “Properties must be found, requisitioned if necessary, in order to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally. It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and luxury flats kept as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live.”
His words will seem appealing to many when set against the apparently unmoved Conservatives.

Last year, Labour tabled an amendment to a housing bill that would require private landlords to ensure the properties they were renting out were “fit for human habitation.” It was voted down by the Conservatives, who argued that the move would force up rents.

The law change would not have affected public housing like the tower that caught fire this week, but it has captured the mood. According to Parliament’s register of interests, 72 of the MPs who voted against the amendment were landlords themselves. A list of those MPs became popular on social media last year and the roll call of shame has returned with a vengeance in the days since the flames swept through Grenfell.

To make matters worse for the Conservatives, Gavin Barwell was the housing minister until this month, and he failed to deliver a promised review into fire risks in high-rise buildings. May appointed him as her new chief of staff just four days before the devastating fire.

Helped by May’s clumsy politicking, Labour unexpectedly succeeded in turning the London Bridge terror attack into a debate about cuts to public services. The same issues are being debated in Britain today, not least since Conservative cuts—overseen by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson in London—have resulted in drastic reductions in the fire service. In London alone, 10 fire stations have been closed down, 27 fire engines scrapped, and 600 firefighting jobs have been lost since 2010.

With the economy already straining under the threat of Brexit, Britain could be ready to usher in the most left-wing government in its history.


Scenes from the Grenfell Tower fire coverage continues to distress the country. Shocking accounts of witnesses and residents describing how they loss their loved ones and escaped the fire themselves, have been etched into the memory of the United Kingdom. But the most disconcerting reality people are having to live with is that this tragedy could have been avoided.

Whilst there have been dozens of community testimonies describing the lack of fire safety, the inferno has also brought into light the gaping inequality between rich and poor. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are of the most affluent areas in the world, yet this man-made disaster took place upon poor people living in the same place. The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.

According to the English Indices of Deprivation, there were 11 so-called lower super output areas (LSOAs) in Kensington and Chelsea that ranked in the poorest decile in the country. On the other hand, 14 areas in the local authority were among the 30% least deprived. The data also revealed that Grenfell Tower and its surroundings are in the most deprived 20% of areas in England for employment and living environment. Also, the most deprived 30% for health deprivation and disability and the most deprived 40% for crime.

Residents in places like Grenfell Tower do not enjoy the same privileges like their other wealthy neighbours are granted. Residents repeatedly voiced concerns about fire safety in Grenfell Tower, including that there was only one escape route and no building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system. They say their concerns were “brushed away” by the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation, which manages thousands of properties for the council.

One of the main reasons for this economic inequality is because the rich have huge influence upon political leadership and political institutions. British government’s have overwhelmingly served the interests of the wealthy to the detriment of ordinary people. The concerns of the poor like those at Grenfell Tower were ignored but this is not the same for the wealthy in the borough. 

The rich have been able to preserve such a status quo as the lowest tax rates, the best health and education and the best housing and surroundings to live. Without a concerted effort to tackle inequality, privilege and disadvantage will continue down the generations. 

The idea that wealth will simply trickle-down automatically to the poor, by focusing on growth, has proven to be false. Today eight people own the same amount of wealth as half of the world’s population. This stark reality isn’t simply due to policy, it’s due to the flawed Capitalism system that’s built upon a flawed economic philosophy.  

In contrast to Capitalism, where the aim of the game is to produce the most wealth, the primary aim of the Islamic economic system is to fulfil the basic needs of society by ensuring the circulation of wealth. Its goal is to ensure that the basic needs of every citizen are fulfilled, not simply to create perpetual economic growth that only some people benefit from. Moreover, Islam does not allow the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Islam has a wealth based taxation system that ensures only those with surplus wealth are taxed. According to the rules of Shariah by implementing the Zakat system, rules of distribution of lands, prohibiting hoarding and interests (riba), Islam will close the door of unjust accumulation of wealth definitively. 

Islam will ensure fair distribution of wealth through strict Shariah principals so that economic development will be enjoyed by the society as a whole. It was the system of the Khilafah which freed people from the never-ending misery of man-made economies in and led them to a life where their basic needs like housing were fulfilled. 

Islam does not tolerate gross division in society where one group of people enjoy profits and other people do not have their basic living conditions met. It will also not permit putting profits over safety as we have seen with the Grenfell tower where cheaper material was used that was more flammable so that the more money could be saved. Grenfell Tower will no doubt trigger a national debate. As Muslims, our duty is to ensure Islam as an alternative way of life is presented as part of this debate.

“And what Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns – it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the [stranded] traveler – so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you. And whatever the Messenger has given you – take; and what he has forbidden you – refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.


The horrific Grenfell Tower inferno has shook all the communities in the UK. Harrowing stories by eye-witnesses and neighbours have left emotional scars which will take time to manage and heal. Witnesses were helpless and desperately watching their friends and families stuck inside a 24-story building. This terrifying experience is not a position any human should have to face. We express our deepest condolence to the victims and to the hundreds who have lost their homes. As to those who lost their lives we remind them of the saying of our beloved Prophet  “Someone who dies by fire is a martyr, someone who dies under a falling building is a martyr” Al-Muwatta.

Our hearts are warmed by the amazing community response. The community including Mosques opened their doors to those that needed shelter and comfort. There has also been a number of fundraising iniatives to provide financial support to those affected and we encourage everyone to contribute towards this.

This is a shocking incident and the public have, rightly so, raised questions about the duties of the government in keeping people safe in social housing like Grenfell Towers in disbelief to how such an incident could occur.

Theresa May’s new chief of staff Gavin Barwell was one of a series of housing ministers who “sat on” a report warning high-rise blocks like Grenfell Tower were vulnerable to fire for four years. A former Chief Fire Officer and secretary of a parliamentary group on fire safety revealed successive ministers had damning evidence on their desks since 2013 and nothing had happened.  Gavin Barwell, who was housing minister, promised to review part B of the Building Regulations 2010, which relate to fire safety, but the review never materialised. The government minister warned against enhancing fire safety rules to include sprinklers because it could discourage house building.

A Coroner’s report into a 2009 blaze in London recommended building regulations be updated, and called for developers refurbishing high-rise blocks to be encouraged to install sprinkler systems.

But five years later, former Housing Minister Brandon Lewis told MPs: “We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation.”

He said the Tory government had committed to being the first to reduce regulations nationwide, pledging a one in-two out rule.

He added: “The cost of fitting a fire sprinkler system may affect house building—something we want to encourage—so we must wait to see what impact that regulation has.”

Kensington is a famously prosperous area of London with an extremely high number of properties worth £1m or more, however this did not happen in a block of luxury flats. It happened in a high-rise building on a council estate. Council housing which is in shocking conditions.

Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) is the company which the people who lived at Grenfell Tower had complained about for many years.
The Grenfell Action Group residents’ association had consistently warned about the possibility of such a tragedy citing very poor fire safety standards at Grenfell Tower and elsewhere in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

The British Government has consistently voted against tenants’ rights over the last few years, even voting down a bill requiring landlords to make their homes fit for habitation. Also it was the British government that drove the loss of 7,000 firefighters over the last five years.

The Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is the epitome of Capitalism. The area is characterised by widening inequality with some of the poorest in London, nearly side by side with billionaire homes.

Dent Coad is an architectural historian and writer who has campaigned against gentrification in the area for the last 11 years in the Borough. She said about the boroughs poverty,  “You can’t always see it by walking around because the council sanitises it by sweeping the streets, pruning the trees and planting hanging baskets. But we have one estate, Henry Dickens Court, that is poorer than the Gorbals and 58% of children live in poverty.”
She further said: “We have areas of extreme poverty. Golborne ward, with the fabulous Trellick tower and Golborne market and all its trendiness, is the joint poorest ward in London. People are getting poorer, their income is dropping, life expectancy is dropping and their health is getting worse. There is no trickle down in Golborne ward and there is no trickle down anywhere in Kensington”

Investigations and reports will now be  conducted however it needs to be explicitly clear – this tragedy is the responsibility of the Government. Under it’s watch it has rejected safety reports and the concerns of residents living in shabby and dangerous conditions. They did this in favour of property development, building properties with the sole aim of reducing costs and maximising profit.

People and their housing needs are not a priority in a system that would rather provide opportunities for billionaires to build swimming pools, rather than place fire sprinklers in social housing.

Indeed the system in Britain is for the rich elite, not for the common man, woman or child.

Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra) said, “If a lost sheep under my care were to die on the banks of the Euphrates, I would expect Allah the Exalted to question me about it on the Day of Resurrection.” [Hilyat al-Awliya, 137]

Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 06-11-2017, 07:16 PM - Forum: Multimedia - No Replies






Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 06-04-2017, 01:28 PM - Forum: Western - No Replies


[Image: Zbigniew-Brzezinski-21st-400x281.png]

“Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?…What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” 

– Zbigniew Brzezinski, in conversation with Le Nouveau Observateur (January, 1998) [1]


Zbigniew Brzezinski, counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, professor of American foreign policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and most famously National Security Adviser under US President Jimmy Carter passed away on Friday May 26th in a Falls Church, Virginia Hospital. He was 89. [2][3]

Brzezinski, though hardly a household name, enjoyed an influence over international politics that few intellectuals outside elected office can hope to attain. In addition to his numerous academic treatises, and the role he played in the Carter administration, he was active in the secretive and influential Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group. Additionally, he co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.[4]

As investigative journalist Daniel Estulin exposes in his 2009 book, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, all of these bodies convene business and political leaders alongside select members of the press behind closed doors with the aim of undermining sovereign democracies and imposing a policy framework favouring a privileged few. Estulin’s analysis reveals that membership in one or more of these bodies functions as a kind of rite of passage for aspiring presidential candidates in both major US political parties.

It could be posited therefore, that Brzezinski, given his influential role in these organizations, may be more powerful in a sense than elected presidents. [5]

The application of Brzezinski’s theories on utilizing ethnic national struggles as a cudgel against the Soviet Union, was supportive in securing the collapse of the USSR. However, as he would concede in his later writings, this approach has proved to be a spectacular failure in terms of attaining what he called US “global primacy” on the world stage forcing a rethink of his earlier 90s era imperial framework.
More importantly, Zbig’s strategy has left a trail of bloodshed and mayhem throughout Eurasia, extending into the Middle East, North Africa and even ‘coming home to roost’ in major American and European centres.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is the author of several pivotal works, including Between Two Ages : America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970)The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), and Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.

Given the ultimate breadth of his influence, this week’s Global Research News Hour commemorates the passing of this controversial figure with an overview of his life and legacy, through the eyes of four observers.

In the first half hour, writer, author and commentator Jay Dyer analyzes Brzezinski’s core beliefs and activities in the pre-Carter era, and the role of the Trilateral Commission in advancing his influence over Carter and successive presidential administrations. We later replay part of an October 2016 interview with Andrew Korybko, in which he described Brzezinski’s important role in the development of ‘hybrid warfare’ in the modern era. We get the perspective of John Helmer, who was a White House staffer in the Carter era. Finally, University of San Francisco Professor and scholar Filip Kovacevic examines the impacts of Brzezinski’s strategies in the post 9/11 era, his later rethink of the idea of “US Primacy,” and the prospects of neoconservative decision-makers in Washington following his lead.

Jay Dyer is a contributor to 21st Century Wire and author of Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film. He is a public speaker, lecturer and comedian, and has authored hundreds of articles. His website is jaysanalysis.com

Andrew Korybko is a geopolitical analyst and an American commentator based in Moscow. He is the author of Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change. He currently studies at the Moscow State University of International Relations and is a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He works for Sputnik.

John Helmer is the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent based in Moscow, and directs his own independent bureau there. He has been a professor of political science, sociology and journalism, and has advised government heads in Greece, the United States and Asia. He served as a staffer in President Jimmy Carter’s White House from 1977 to 1981. Helmer recently composed two articles on Brzezinski: Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Svengali of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency is Dead, But the Evil Lives on, and The President’s Inferiority Complex, His Advisor’s Russia-Hating Obsession, and the Putsch Plotter with the Itchy Trigger Finger. Both can be found on Helmer’s website, johnhelmer.net.

Filip Kovacevic is a Montenegrin geopolitical author, a university professor, and chairman of the Movement for Neutrality of Montenegro. He has authored seven books and numerous articles and teaches at the University of San Francisco. Well versed on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s published works, Professor Kovacevic also serves as senior analyst for Russia and the Balkans for Newsbud.com.

Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 06-04-2017, 12:17 PM - Forum: Alternative therories - No Replies


[Image: AFGHANISTAN.gif]

It was a normal day and people would move to their destinations, some by cars while others on foot. The streets were teeming with commuters as it was exactly when people rush to their jobs in the morning. Suddenly, a fierce explosion jolted the diplomatic and highly secured zone of Kabul and sent blowing shockwaves to surroundings within a kilometer or so. It wreaked a massive havoc in human and financial terms, killing nearly 100 people and incurring multi-million dollars loss.

Afghan Officials claim the suicide bomber in a sewage truck packed with powder-keg tried to convince the security guards that it is granted permission by an [unknown] embassy before hitting the button on dashboard to implode the staggering 1,500 kg of corrosive explosives. It is an official reasoning and media leaned on it.

There are televised commentaries as well as powerful assumptions that challenge that it was a missile that struck the diplomatic enclave. Some 20 to 30 people including security guards in the vicinity of the explosion site have died with no clue of corpse and blown to tiny pieces thanks to the intensity of the blast.

One more mystery about Wednesday’s incident is that the militant group can rarely or never possess such powerful explosives that could produce an earthquake-like explosion, and it reveals that something is wrong.
[Image: isis.jpg]

ISIS nexus in Afghanistan (Source: TheNewsTribe)

The attack had strong impacts as for the first time as an international display of condolence, the Paris Eiffel tower went dark overnight to pay tribute to the Afghan victims.

The Afghan president Ashraf Ghani wasted no time to announce the execution order of 11 Taliban and Haqqani inmates to heal the wounds and disarm angry Kabulis and above all to stop a large protest rally from shaping up. But it was too late.
The furious Kabul residents concurred to stage an enormous demonstration in protest of the bloody explosion. A notice was well circulated across social media calling Kabulis for a powerful march towards the presidential palace. The peaceful demonstration turned into violence that killed seven people and added to the Wednesday’s deaths.

Afghanistan’s wrathful and war-weary population rarely restrains its feelings to avoid a violent protest.
In the aftermath of the attack, Afghanistan’s media took to explore facts behind the tragedy. The next day, social media burst with posts that blamed Iranian embassy and Russia for the disaster. The other day media reported that the suspected sewage truck belonged to the company of an Afghan MP, Mirwais Yasini, who is already defamed by social media over being an ISI agent in Kabul. But such allegations could be counted as minutiae for investigation into a terror attack as such.

This is a premature and hasty blame-game crafted and unleashed by true masterminds of the attacks to distract general trend from approaching it.

The Taliban rebel group denied responsibility and condemned it with words that it only struck civilians. Afghanistan’s intelligence agency hurled the blame on Pakistan-based Haqqani Network which has yet to claim responsibility. Long after the blast, the Islamic State popped up to assert responsibility as though one might have awakened it to assume it. This is all confusing the nation.

Almost every catastrophic incident in Afghanistan, notably in the capital Kabul, is followed by a war of words between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Afghan government now holds Islamabad directly responsible for it, while in early years, it used to blast at Pakistan-based terrorist groups.
Undeniably, Pakistan is the facilitator of the insurgent terror bombings in Afghanistan at the behest of others, though it is not willfully and singlehandedly chalking out attacks of this magnitude. The US and also the UK, as main war drivers, quietly sidesteps from the line of Afghan-Pak strife, posing as third parties to the Afghan war.

We [Afghans] now live in a more precarious time when the US is working to make twists in its Afghan policy and strategy. Covering the latest tragedy in Kabul, the Western mainstream media has one thing in common to say that

Quote:“Afghanistan’s plunging into instability even though the US and allies are struggling to combat”.

It depicts the situation in a fashion that empowers the US and allies to endorse its presence on the ground and cement its position about the new war strategy and policy on the horizon.

Who draw on the most profit out of such media propaganda? It is the same powers that take a handful of reasons back home to propel their war plans.

Peace in Afghanistan is a distant dream. The latest Kabul attack or the escalating flames of war, in general, are the mouthpiece of a fresh US strategy hurtling towards Russia. A documentary by Al-Jazeera titled “ISIL: Target Russia” features that the group is beefing up on the northern and eastern Afghanistan. An Islamic State commander speaking to Al-Jazeera claims that somewhat 2,000 ISIL/ISIS men are embattled in northern Afghanistan while few others have managed to enter into Russia. He says:

Quote:“These 2,000 fighters will strike against Russia when the time is ripe”

[Image: 5c4963-20170531-kabul-attack.jpg]

Security forces inspect near the site of an explosion where the German Embassy is located in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Wednesday. Rahmat Gul | AP

However, the Islamic State’s capacity to storm Russia sounds implausible. The Afghanistan’s Islamic State, it is argued, is designed to play threat to Russia for its involvement in Syria’s anti-ISIS military campaign that is paying off. What reflects and backs this hypothesis is that the Islamic State’s rise in Afghanistan coincides with Russian intervention into Syrian conflict. We can affirm that ISIS’s fiasco in Syria produced Afghanistan’s branch of the Islamic State in a relatively marginal scale.

In the Islamic State’s wicked war on Russia, what is concerning and disastrous for Afghanistan is the way it hurts the people. The Kabul’s deadly explosion is a manifestation of this dangerously growing force. The Manchester attack, for example, and Kabul’s attack are both by-products of the inflicted dirty war directed from the same address. As a false-flag, the Manchester’s terrorist assault was an advanced show of the Islamic State’s strength in the face of the world that barely believes in or dismisses the terrorist activities.

In the current stretch of history, the warmongers push for an enormous tragedy that can win global heed into the West’s “war on terror”. As much as it becomes tough for a bogus war to produce justifications for its viability that drags on unfoundedly, more deadly events would be imminent, a vortex that Afghanistan is now facing with.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Masud Wadan, Global Research, 2017

Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 05-24-2017, 06:47 PM - Forum: Alternative therories - Replies (1)





A Monthly Newsmagazine from Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought 

Manchester, Friday May 26, 2017 
While the Theresa May regime in Britain has put the country on maximum alert with armed troops patrolling the streets following the Manchester terrorist bombing of Monday (May 23) night, news has emerged that the alleged bomber, Salman Abedi was known to the authorities. 

The British Home Secretary Amber Rudd has also confirmed this saying British-born Abedi of Libyan parents, was known “up to a point” to the British intelligence services and police. 

Her “up to a point” remark is misleading. Muslims in Britain had warned the British anti-terrorism hotline, not once but twice and as early as 2011, about Abedi’s radical views and behavior, according to Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadan Foundation in Manchester. 

In a May 25 interview with CBC’s ‘As it Happens’ program, Shafiq told the host Carol Off that on two separate occasions Muslim leaders in Manchester contacted the anti-terrorism squad hotline warning them about Abedi. Why the British authorities took no action against him raises serious questions. 

Shafiq’s revelation also puts to rest the scandalous allegation that Muslims do not condemn terrorist attacks and that they do not cooperate with the authorities. Several terrorist acts in Britain have been thwarted as a result of information provided by Muslims, according to Shafiq. 

Interestingly, a day after Shafiq’s interview, a search of the CBC website found no link to his interview. Instead, the ‘As it Happens’ lead story is about a pregnant teenage girl at an American school who has been barred from participating in the graduation ceremony to receive her diploma because she broke the school rule by indulging in immoral activity and becoming pregnant. Immoral conduct, according to the student, Maddi Runkles, is quite common at the Maryland school, indeed the norm. She just happened to be unfortunate to get pregnant. 

The British regime has said that MI5, the domestic intelligence agency, was aware of Abedi’s extremist views as early as 2011, according to the New York Times (May 25, 2017). The regime, however, insisted, he was “only a peripheral figure, and not someone whose behavior would have warranted immediate action.” 

There is clearly more to the Abedi story than the regime in London is admitting. As Tony Cartalucci, writing on his landdestroyer blog [May 24, 2017] (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2017/05...ored-terro rists.html) pointed out: “As suspected and as was the case in virtually all recent terror attacks carried out in Europe - including both in France and Belgium - the suspect involved in the recent Manchester blast which killed 22 and injured scores more was previously known to British security and intelligence agencies.” 

Quoting from the Rupert Murdoch-owned right wing daily, The Telegraph, “Salman Abedi named as the Manchester suicide bomber - what we know about him,” Cartalucci points out: “Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.” 

The same Telegraph article would also admit (emphasis added), according to Cartalucci: “A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range [in Manchester]. 

“Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz, a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of al-Qaeda. 

“Azzouz, 48, an expert bomb-maker, was accused of running an al-Qaeda network in eastern Libya. The Telegraph reported in 2014 that Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bombmaking. 

“Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi.” 

While the British regime had placed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) on its list of terrorist organizations as early as 2005 (it is listed on the UK government website as a terrorist group: Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations) as had the US State Department, the group continued to operate freely in Manchester, even fund-raising. 

The fact is, Western regimes have for a long time used terrorist groups and organizations to advance their nefarious agendas worldwide. Al Qaeda, al Nusra Front and ISIS/ISIL are all part of this, as was LIFG that was used to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi. 

But terrorists can also go their own way, as happened with al Qaeda and LIFG. The terrorists rampaging in Iraq, Syria and a number of other places have all had close links with the LIFG and with the Western regimes. Weapons taken from Libyan army depots have also been used in Syria, courtesy of the American CIA. 

The Manchester bombing, while tragic, shows once again the sordid conduct of Western regimes and their intelligence agencies in using groups and patsies to carry out their criminal agendas. 

It is ordinary people—in this case the people of Manchester—that end up paying the price for such policies. 

While visiting injured teens in a Manchester hospital, Queen Elizabeth said what the terrorist did was “very wicked”. 

Perhaps, her Majesty should also have said what her own government, led by Teresa May and her predecessors have done over the years is not just wicked, it is absolutely criminal. 

But who should hold these war criminals to account? 


http://www.hizb.org.uk/resources/leaflets/muslim-response-manchester-k illings/ 

The truth is that the tragic deaths in Manchester only serve to remind us of the bloodshed and insecurity that wreaks havoc across this chaotic world dominated by capitalist states. What had seemed to afflict the Muslim world daily for the past 17 years, now sadly seems to occur periodically in Britain and Europe. The numbers may not be as great but the sense of fear is nonetheless apparent. 

Politicians may escalate security measures but sadly nothing will change whilst they are unwilling to admit the causes of terror in the world – whether the oppression of rulers who are courted for their petrodollars; or the interventionist policies of the colonial powers that have destabilised whole regions of the world for decades. 

Muslims in Britain can speak out strongly against such violence, but should not let it change our Islamic way of life, that is targeted by politicians every time such events happen, ironically exposing the contradictions in the rights and values they pretend to be upholding. 

Muslims should present Islam as a solution and not to allow this beautiful deen to be put in the dock. When Islam was the basis of intellectual and political life in the Muslim world, the world witnessed a phenomenal civilisation, able to create a society where justice and security was for all citizens, and where technology and education flourished. And since the colonisation of that part of the world, it has seen nothing but instability, insecurity and despair. 

Muslims should hold firmly to their deen (way of life) and always speak out for what is right and against all terror – not selectively according to what the media highlights. 

Muslims should interact with the wider society and explain Islam – its beliefs and values – and its alternative political vision for the Muslim world. A vision that will actually break the political mould of this world as it currently is. That is so badly needed, and without it, anarchy and vigilantism like this is unlikely to cease. 

We have a message for those Muslims who may be angry and frustrated at the oppression and injustice they see created by western states. Unlike western states, we do not take innocent human lives in order to achieve political objectives. The carnage created by western states angers Muslims and non-Muslims across the globe. However, any action a Muslim does must be in accordance with the Shariah – and Islam does not advocate that such indiscriminate killings are the way to change the situation. Rather the Messenger ? gave a method for change – which was a political and intellectual struggle based on his model, that led to the establishment of a righteous Islamic Khilafah state, that looked after people’s affairs by Islam and carried the light of Islam to the world. That is the only way to success in this world and the next. Any alternative, whether adopting a secular method, or the way of indiscriminate killing, can only lead to the Hellfire. 



http://www.hizb.org.uk/viewpoint/collectively-blaming-muslim-community -distraction-real-cause/ 

In the aftermath of tragedies like Manchester – when Islam becomes part of the causal narrative – media interviewers are adamant that Muslim leaders and personalities do more to ‘condemn’ such events. 

Even to question a Muslim to condemn such an incident is insulting, as it questions their human concern towards others, expecting them to prove it more than others. 

Muslim do not need to join in that sort of condemnation, that is part of a political agenda to demonise their community, their deen and distract from the real issues – especially when our own creed, which demands we follow only what Allah Azza wa Jall and what the Prophet (saw) commanded, has made it clear that the action of taking innocent lives is explicitly forbidden. 

No community should feel the need to apologise for tragedies that they did not initiate, encourage, or carry out. Expecting Muslim families, colleagues and individuals to apologise is unfair and unjust, and implies a collective blame. 

When the MP for Batley, Jo Cox was murdered by a man radicalised by far right/fascist ideas, the media did not call on all white British men to apologise. 

When a woman is assaulted, no one expects all men to apologise. 

When Western governments waged wars across the Middle East with tens of thousands of people losing their life, or leaving them with horrendous life changing injuries, no government has offered an apology for such inhumane activities- even though they have been directly involved. 

So it is nonsense to expect Muslims to apologise for what happened in Manchester. 

What needs to be examined is the cause of this global chaos and bloodshed. 

It is not Islam that is dominant in the world, it is global capitalism and two hundred years of a colonial foreign policy that has brought us to this sorry state. 

This is where the narrative needs to begin and end. 



Upon the tragic deaths of children in Manchester, as expected, the media and politicians have once again turned their head towards the Muslim community. Whilst we may never know what caused Salman Ramadan Abedi to murder and maim so many young people at Manchester Arena on Monday night, the conclusions have already been implied by the politicians and media, that due to his connections with war-torn Libya and Syria, he was likely to have been “radicalised by an extremist ideology.” There is now a debate taking place once again about the effeciveness of the Government’s PREVENT strategy which is based upon the theory of radicalisation. 

Since the time of Tony Blair where he infamously stated that the ‘rules of the game have changed’, the British government has pinned the actions of a very few to an entire community. The strategy has been heavily criticised throughout the last few years for discriminating against Muslims and viewing them as a suspect community, but now it is being given vindication by some in light of the Manchester attacks. Ironically, what the attacks show is that the PREVENT strategy has failed to prevent such attacks. 

Preventing violent extremism has been the mantra but it has not been able to ‘prevent’ horrors in mainland Britain. Instead it has focused on law abiding Muslims in every town and city in England. It has questioned Muslim children in Schools and Colleges, leaving them psychologically damaged by the experience. It has integrated draconian legislation into statutory services, where normal Muslim families have not been able to travel without disclosing their entire family makeup and political views. Mosques have been ordered to curtail legitimate Islamic opinions and integrate their views with British values. 

An entire community has been viewed with suspicion and contempt, because of deficient narratives engineered by a government that is adamant to change Islam, not to prevent violence. 

The Muslim community in Britain has endured a torturous journey of villification from the media and the government, for actions it did not commit. 

Whilst Islamic values have been criticised and British values celebrated, Muslims have been at the receiving end of endless violation of their core Islamic ideas. This has included indisputable beliefs around world politics, segregation, caliphate, marriage and many other aspects. 

However the time has now arrived to question the government in these difficult times- what has the Prevent agenda and anti- radicalisation agenda actually achieved? It did not stop the murder of Lee Rigby. Neither did it stop the dreadful killing of children in Manchester. 

So what has it acheived, apart from marginalizing the Muslim community, instilling fear and creating discord between Muslims and non Muslims? Absolutely nothing. 

The Muslims in Britain have exhausted themselves, by making it explicitly clear that Islam does not allow the killing of innocent men, women and children. However the British government still throws out the narrative that there is a problem with Islam and that the community needs to do more to tackle ‘extremism’.

The very few committing violent atrocities is not because of Islam. It is not because Muslims encourage these actions. It is not because of Mosques preaching hate to people. It most definitely is not because Muslim women cannot speak English, as indicated by the poorly articulated Casey Report. 

Indeed Islam does not associate itself to any of these crimes – therefore it is the apt time for the government to take a deep look at itself and ask another question – why do these violent actions take place?

British foreign policy will be a good starting point. It’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will provide an insight. Propping up tyrants in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world will give a perspective. 

An attempt to answer these questions will provide an understanding of the reason why the very few engage in physical violence. The Prevent agenda does not even attempt to answer or engage the real narrative, rather it completely misses the point and as one critic described “barking up the wrong tree.” 

Muslims will continue to challenge the perverse government narratives of extremism and question draconian policies- especially as they have achieved no outcome whatsoever. 

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do” {An-Nisa: 135} 

Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 05-01-2017, 09:21 AM - Forum: Multimedia - No Replies


[Image: GFI%20Press%20Release%20Logo.jpg]                                                 

US$620 billion-970 billion drained from developing world in 2014, primarily through trade fraud
Illicit inflows similarly harmful and estimated at $1.4-$2.5 trillion in 2014
Combined, illicit outflows and inflows accounted for 14.1-24.0 percent of total developing country trade over 2005-2014
Sub-Saharan Africa Still Suffers Largest Illicit Outflows as percent of GDP

WASHINGTON, DC – Illicit financial flows (IFFs) from developing and emerging economies kept pace at nearly US$1 trillion in 2014, according to a study released today by Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a Washington, DC-based research and advisory organization. The report pegs illicit financial outflows at 4.2-6.6 percent of developing country total trade in 2014, the last year for which comprehensive data are available.

Titled “Illicit Financial Flows to and from Developing Countries: 2005-2014,” the report is the first global study at GFI to equally emphasize illicit outflows and inflows. Each is found to have remained persistently high over the period between 2005 and 2014. Combined, these outflows and inflows are estimated to account for between 14.1 and 24.0 percent of developing country trade, on average.

“The order of magnitude of these estimates, much more so than their exactitude, warrants serious attention in both the developing countries and the wealthier world,” said GFI President Raymond Baker, a longtime authority on financial opacity. “Years of experience with businesses and governments in the developing world have taught us that the decision to bring illicit flows into a particular developing country often marks only the first phase of a strategy to subsequently move funds out of the country. Together, illicit inflows and outflows sap the crucial financial resources needed to reach the Sustainable Development Goals.”
Additional Findings
  • An average of 87 percent of illicit financial outflows over the 2005-2014 period were due to the fraudulent misinvoicing of trade.
  • Illicit financial outflows from Sub-Saharan Africa ranged from 5.3 percent to 9.9 percent of total trade in 2014, a ratio higher than any other geographic region studied.
  • Total illicit financial flows (outflows plus inflows) grew at an average rate of between 8.5 percent and 10.1 percent a year over the ten-year period.
  • In 2014, outflows are estimated to have ranged between $620 billion and $970 billion, while inflows ranged between $1.4 trillion and $2.5 trillion.
[Image: estifo.png]
[Image: estifi.png]
[Image: estiff.png]
Policy Recommendations
  • Governments should establish public registries of verified beneficial ownership information on all legal entities, and all banks should know the true beneficial owner(s) of any account in their financial institution.
  • Government authorities should adopt and fully implement all of the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) anti-money laundering recommendations; laws already in place should be strongly enforced.
  • Policymakers should require multinational companies to publicly disclose their revenues, profits, losses, sales, taxes paid, subsidiaries, and staff levels on a country-by-country basis.
  • All countries should actively participate in the worldwide movement towards the automatic exchange of tax information as endorsed by the OECD and the G20.
  • To curtail trade misinvoicing:
    • customs agencies should treat trade transactions involving a tax haven with the highest level of scrutiny;
    • governments should significantly boost their customs enforcement by equipping and training officers to better detect intentional misinvoicing of trade transactions, particularly through access to real-time world market pricing information at a detailed commodity level; and,
    • GFI has developed a product to assist governments in the detection of potential misinvoicing in real time—GFTrade™, a proprietary risk assessment application developed to enable customs officials to determine if goods are priced outside typical ranges for comparable products.
  • Governments should sign on to the Addis Tax Initiative to further support efforts to curb IFFs as a key component of the development agenda. 
To conduct the study, GFI analyzed discrepancies in bilateral trade statistics and balance of payments data, as reported to the International Monetary Fund, in order to detect flows of capital that are illegally earned, transferred, and/or utilized. Since GFI’s last global report, released December 2015, the estimation methodology has been refined. These revisions generate a lower and upper bound for the estimates and account for several country idiosyncrasies.

To schedule an interview with Mr. Baker, Mr. Matthew Salomon, or Mr. Joseph Spanjers, contact Christine Clough at cclough@gfintegrity.org / +1 202 293 0740, ext. 231. On-camera spokespersons are available in Washington, DC.

Notes to Editors:
  • Click here to download a fully copy of the report, to read the report online, and to download the report data.
  • More information about GFTrade™ is available here.
  • All monetary values are expressed in nominal U.S. dollars (USD). All percentage values are expressed as a percentage of a country’s (or country group’s) total trade (exports plus imports) with the world.
Christine Clough
+1 202 293 0740 ext.231 (Office)

Global Financial Integrity (GFI) is a Washington, DC-based research and advisory organization working to curtail illicit financial flows by producing groundbreaking research, promoting pragmatic policy solutions, and advising developing country governments.

For additional information, please visit
Follow us on: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
Click here to unsubscribe
[Image: TrackImage?key=3082068896]

Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 04-30-2017, 02:40 PM - Forum: Alternative therories - Replies (2)


Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 04-25-2017, 05:47 AM - Forum: Think Tanks (Rest of the world) - No Replies




[Image: spacer.gif]

Print this item

Posted by: globalvision2000administrator - 04-24-2017, 03:51 PM - Forum: Western - No Replies

Building The Future of Finance

BnkToTheFuture is a global online investment platform that allows qualifying investors to invest in financial innovation including FinTech (Financial Technology) companies, funds and other new alternative financial products. 

Print this item