|ABD’nin Libya Büyükelçisi Chris Stevens ve 3 ABD’li yetkili 12 Eylül 2012’de, Libya’nın Bingazi şehrindeki ABD Başkonsolosluğuna yapılan saldırı sonucu hayatını kaybetti. Ölüme sebebiyet veren ise saldırganların çıkardığı yangın sırasında dumandan zehirlenme. Arapça ve Fransızca konuşan Büyükelçi Stevens,”Libya’da olağanüstü umut ve değişim döneminde yer aldığı için kendisini talihli gördüğünü!” bile ifade edip sanal ortama taşımıştı. Üstelik İslami toplum yapısını ve Şark kültürünü yeteri kadar öğrenebilecek süre içerisinde, evvelce Suudi Arabistan, Mısır, Suriye ve İsrail’de görev yapmış.
Bu gelişmeyle büyük bir baskı altında kalan Libya İçişleri Bakanı Yardımcısı Vanis El-Şerif, ABD konsolosluğuna yapılan roket atarla yapılan saldırıdan Kaddafi taraftarlarını sorumlu tuttu.
Başkanlık seçimlerinin hız kazandığı ABD’de ise Başkan Barack Obama, “Özgürleştirdiğimiz ülkede bu nasıl oldu?” diye hayretini gizleyememiş. “Bu hain saldırıyı düzenleyenlerin adalete teslim edilmesi için Libya hükümetiyle çalışacağız. Saldırıyı yapanların adalet önüne çıkarılacağından hiç şüpheniz olmasın” diyerek kararlılık ifadeleri sarf etti.
ABD, Libya olayını sadece sözlerle sonuçlandırmadı. Bölgeye güdümlü füzeler taşıyan savaş gemileri ve CIA ağırlıklı 50 civarında istihbarat elemanları göndermiş.
Olayın Sebebi: Hz. Muhammed’i ve İslamiyetçi Aşağılama
Olayın sebebi din çatışmasına çanak tutan bir provokasyondur. “Müslümanların Masumiyeti” adlı ve 2 saat uzunluğundaki bir filmde “Hz. Muhammed’in ‘sahtekâr’ olduğu, ona inananların da ‘kundakçı’ oldukları” iftiraları atılmış. Keza “Hz. Muhammed’in ‘kadın düşkünü’ olduğu”, hatta “çocuklarla cinsel ilişkiyi ve çocukları öldürmeyi onayladığı” yönünde iddialar ve görüntülere yer verilmiş. Filmde İslamiyet ve Hz. Muhammed’in aşağılanması, Peygamberimiz rolündeki aktörün bir eşeğe “ilk Müslüman hayvan” demesine kadar götürülmüş.
Filmin yapımcısı ve yönetmeni ise İsrail doğumlu ve asıllı Amerikan vatandaşı Sam Bacile’dir. 56 yaşındaki Bacile’nin yazdığı ve yönettiği film, iddialara göre 100 Yahudi zenginin bağışladığı 5 milyon dolarlık yardımla çekilmiş. Hatta ABD’nin Florida eyaletinde Kuran-ı Kerim yakan ve bu olay üzerine Müslümanların hedefi haline gelen rahip Terry Jones’dan da destek alınmış.
ABD basınına ”İslam kanserdir, Müslümanlar da yok edilmesi gereken böceklerdir. Bu film ile İslam’ın nefret içerikli bir din olduğunu göstereceğim!” diyen Bacile, bu filmi “provokatif bir siyasi tutum için yaptığını” bizzat itiraf etmiş. Müslümanlar üzerinde provokatif etkiler bırakması kaçınılmaz olan bu film Mısırlı Kıpti Hıristiyan Morris Sadek tarafından da Arapçaya çevrilmiş. Kuran yakma sabıkalısı Rahip Terry Jones, filmin 12 Eylül’de gösterime gireceğini açıklamış.
Nitekim tüm özellikle Arap Baharı’nın derin izler bıraktığı ülkelerden Mısır ve Libya’da bir bakıma facianın fitili ateşlenmiş. Filme yönelik ilk protestolar Mısır’ın başkenti Kahire’de ortaya çıktı. Doğal olarak da filmin yapımcı ülkesi ABD’nin Kahire Büyükelçiliği hedefteydi. Büyükelçilik önünde toplanan ve tahrik edilmiş Mısırlı Müslümanlar ABD bayrağını yaktılar.
Mısır’da Hürriyet ve Adalet Partisi (HAP), resmi sitesinde ”Bu film ahlaki ve dini değerlere uygun değil. Bu haliyle ifade özgürlüğüne vurulmuş büyük bir darbe ve aynı zamanda mukaddesata ve insan hakları evrensel beyannamelerine karşı işlenmiş açık bir ihlaldir” denilerek, anılan filmin yasaklanmasını istedi.
ABD, 2003 Irak müdahalesinde Ebu Garip’te uyguladığı sapık işkencelerin Müslümanlar üzerindeki etkisini kavrayamamışlardı. Benzer yanlışlıkları daha hafif de olsa Afganistan ve Pakistan’da da yaptılar. Bu sebeple 2 ülkede de Amerikan düşmanlığı yükseliştedir.
ABD, Tunus, Mısır ve Libya’daki Arap Baharı sonucunda, bu ülkelerde ABD yanlısı olan yönetim ve anlayışının hâkim olmadığını gördüler. Nitekim anılan filme ilgili ilk tepkiler bu 3 ülkeden yükseldi. ABD, düzen vermeye çalıştığı BOP ülkelerinde kan kaybediyor.
ABD’nin Suriye’ye müdahale konusundaki isteksizliğin başında Orta Doğu’da her müdahaleden sonra “Kendim ettim, kendim buldum!” şeklinde, aleyhine dönen gelişmelerdir. İnşallah BOP Eşbaşkanımız ve Yeni Osmanlıcı Bakan bundan bir şeyler anlar!
Günlük arşivler: Eylül 13, 2012
With Congress still unable to iron out a cyber-security bill that both sides of the Legislative Branch can get behind, the White House has drafted an Executive Order that they will roll out if efforts on Capitol Hill remain unproductive.
Despite repeated pleas from lawmakers and other federal officials to have a cybersecurity legislation adopted by the United States government, members of the House and Senate have been unwilling to compromise on a bill. With every attempt at passing cybersecurity legislation ending with roadblocks, the White House has now announced that it is considering taking measures into their own hands.
White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden tells the Washington Post that “an Executive Order is among the things we’re considering to fulfill the president’s direction to us to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyberthreats,” though has not confirmed how far along the White House is with efforts to enact such an order.
It has been rumored since the congressional stalemate was first reported earlier this year that the White House may bypass Capitol Hill and create legislation on their own, especially after the Obama administration’s cybersecurity coordinator, Howard A. Schmidt, resigned from his post in May. Schmidt had been perhaps the administration’s most adamant opponent of the House of Representatives-approved Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, and was said by many to be the key White House staffer siding against the bill. Now with Schmidt out of the White House and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle still asking for a CISPA-like bill to be approved into law, US President Barack Obama may sign an order that’ll ensure that America’s computer infrastructure is safe guarded under a new directive immediately.
Federal News Radio reporter Jason Miller says his outlet has seen a draft of the order and compares it heavily with the comprehensive cyber legislation introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R- Maine) this past July that has been unable to clear the Senate. If the copy Federal News claims to have seen is adopted, Miller writes that it will required the US Department of Homeland Security to establish a cybersecurity council within 90 days that will “develop a report to determine which agencies should regulate which parts of the critical infrastructure.”
The Post adds that the council will consist of representatives from the Commerce, Defense, Treasury, Energy and Justice departments, as well as another from the Director of National Intelligence’s Office.
Miller also adds that the order, in its latest incarnation, would include information-sharing provisions similar to what was included in CISPA, but would not, however, necessarily reward private sector corporations with incentives for openly sharing intelligence with the government.
“Sources say it doesn’t advocate for rewards or more tangible incentives such as liability protection like the Lieberman-Collins bill does,” Miller adds.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), one of the most outspoken opponents of CISPA, said that the House’s original attempt at cybersecurity legislation paved the way for some serious problems because of those protections. Back in May, Sen. Wyden said, “Our job is to write a cyber-security bill that protects Americans’ security and their fundamental right to privacy,” but argued that all attempts had been misguided.
“I believe these bills will encourage the development of a cyber-security industry that profits from fear and whose currency is Americans private data” he said. “These bills create a Cyber Industrial Complex that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution.”
While we reflect on the 11th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on American soil, there is a blinding light that may obscure our view: this sworn enemy now fights hand in hand with the US against the Syrian regime.
The historic State of the Union address by US president George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 is loaded with morals and principles about good and evil.
The president’s ultimatum was clear: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
In Syria, there is mounting evidence that Al Qaeda and its allies are actively deploying terror tactics and suicide bombers to overthrow the Assad regime.
Syrian citizens who prefer the secular and stable state to the prospect of an Iraqi-style sectarian state may well be turning this same question around to the US government: are you with us, or with the terrorists?
This week, head of the Salafi jihad and close ally of al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, pledged ”deadly attacks” against Syria as ”our fighters are coming to get you” because ”crimes” by the regime ”prompts us to jihad”.
Bush referred to al Qaeda as the enemies of freedom: ”the terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews”. But Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ”your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty … Alawites are more infidel than the Jews and Christians”. Because the new jihad targets Alawites rather than Jews and Christians, does this render them better bed fellows?
By his own admission, Bush stated that al Qaeda was ”linked to many other organisations in different countries … They are recruited from their own nations … where they are trained in the tactics of terror … They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction”.
Yet this is precisely how the foreign jihadists in Syria have been described by reporters. They are funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they collaborate with the Free Syrian Army which is aided and abetted by the US.
Bush condemned the Taliban regime because they were ”sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder”. Eleven years later, the parallels produce an uncomfortable truth.
If only the Syrian uprising was as simple as the Arab Spring narrative where citizens seek democracy and freedom. But those unarmed protests have long since been hijacked by a cocktail of agendas which have little to do with Syrian democracy, and more to do with a proxy war to create a sectarian Sunni state that weakens Shi’te Iran’s main partner in the region.
Bush was correct in claiming that al Qaeda ”want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan” – who were all US-Israel allies at that time.
But his list stopped short of mentioning Syria or Iraq, the real targets of al Qaeda. Why does overthrowing Syria, using the same terror tactics, fail to attract the same degree of outrage?
Bush continues: ”We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”
This pledge appears to have fallen on its own sword, given the funding of the jihadists in Syria. The terrorists have bred and spread across borders, which is the opposite of Bush’s prophecy.
The US administration must come clean about its financial aid. It cannot use one hand to sign a blank cheque to the rebels, and the other hand to cover its eyes to their immoral and illegal tactics. It cannot hide behind ”the end justifies the means” as there are too many innocent lives at stake.
Bush rode off on his high horse: ”We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom”.
If the principles and morality are to be taken seriously, then they need to be applied consistently.
The US regime should be actively and publicly distancing itself from the foreign terrorists and Salafist jihadists that are proliferating within sovereign Syria.
It should be condemning al Qaeda for its militant intervention. It should be condemning the Saudi sheikhs who issue fatwas for an Alawite holocaust.
The wisdom that we see is grief over the al Qaeda crime 11 years ago, yet covert collaboration with this sworn enemy today.
Perhaps the US is applying another principle that they may have learned from their pragmatic Arab allies – the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Joseph Wakim is the founder of Australian Arabic Council.
U.S. politicians need to stop counterproductive meddling
By Liu Chang
BEIJING: Designedly turning a blind eye to Japan’s recent reckless and provocative actions of “buying” China’s Diaoyu Islands, some U.S. lawmakers brazenly blamed China for the flaring tensions in the region.
Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehitinen of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday groundlessly rounded upon China, saying China was a “schoolyard bully” towards its maritime neighbors and aspired to dominate the region.
Such remarks would not only do no good to the worsening ties between Beijing and Tokyo, but also embolden the Japanese government and some other countries in the region that have maritime disputes with China to take even more actions that could undermine stability and peace in the Asia-Pacific.
The Philippines has already attempted to fish in the troubled waters. Manila on Wednesday unilaterally renamed as the “West Philippine Sea” a portion of the South China Sea that includes waters around some Chinese islands, a serious breach of China’s sovereign rights.
In fact, it would not be necessary to employ complicated high technology to determine who is both right and reasonable in these territorial disputes in the region. There are plenty of historical texts and records that can effectively prove China’s ownership of these islands and waters.
Therefore, the only reason why a handful of U.S. politicians always stand against China’s legitimate ownership of these islets is that they purposely choose to do so.
In fact, since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Washington has been inclined to pin China on its combat chart and take it as a potential challenger to its so-called strategic interests and self-claimed leadership in the Asia-Pacific area.
However, with misgivings about Beijing’s rapid emergence onto the world stage, the United States still wants to grab a big share of China’s extended and lucrative markets for business profits.
And it would be self-deceiving that China could not see through Washington’s calculations, and such a two-pronged policy of containment and engagement towards China could never possibly underpin a stable and constructive China-U.S. relationship.
Moreover, for generations, there have always been some U.S. politicians trying to make political capital out of China-bashing games. They have also helped to boost America’s half-hearted China policy.
China has demonstrated to the world that it seeks no regional domination. It is dedicated to developing its economy and improving the Chinese people’s livelihood. Therefore, there is no reason for China to undermine the regional stability and thus disrupt its development.
In the meantime, it has been China’s steadfast policy and long-term practice to resolve the maritime disputes in the region through bilateral talks.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that China would allow any alien trespasses over its sovereignty. China has the will and ability to safeguard its territorial integrity.
U.S. politicians should refrain from making irresponsible remarks that would serve nothing but to stoke more tensions. Washington needs to heed China’s call that it play a constructive role in the Asia-Pacific.
Time for U.S. to rethink its Mideast policies after ambassador’s tragic death
By Wu Liming
BEIJING: The attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya on Tuesday were hair-raising, and the death of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was tragic.
On the surface, the attacks stemmed from a U.S.-made film that “defames Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.” But their causes run deeper than that, highlighting America’s flawed strategy in the Middle East and the necessity for Washington to rethink its policies toward the region.
Both Libya and Egypt witnessed drastic political upheavals in the past year, in which the United States played a crucial role. However, many Egyptians and Libyans don’t seem grateful to America, and the deadly attacks appear to reveal deep resentment. Why?
First and foremost, the United States has been pursuing hegemony in the Middle East for decades, and people in the region are fed up with the image of “the arrogant American.”
Years ago, the United States launched the “war on terror” and turned Iraq into bloody chaos, causing numerous deaths and casualties, with millions of people displaced.
Despite all its rhetoric, the United States failed to bring prosperity to the region and the people there remain mired in dire situations.
For instance, Iraq is still troubled by explosions, sectarian conflicts, a slow reconstruction process and the resurgence of al-Qaida.
Secondly, the attacks dealt a big blow to America’s decades-old scheme of trying to set up a coalition in the region to bring down the Mideast governments it dislikes, like Iran and Syria.
To that end, America and its allies have been trying to push for regime change in the name of democratization. But the region is still volatile, and the coalition has been weakened instead of getting stronger.
Not long ago, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Middle East in an bid to patch up cracks that emerged in the region’s relationship with America. But she met with protests. And the latest attacks demonstrated again how unpopular Americans are in the region.
Thirdly, America’s partiality for Israel leads to widespread hatred among Arabs, shaking the foundation of America’s strategy in the region.
Moreover, the political patterns in many Mideast countries have gradually changed following the rise of religious forces, which is bad news for the United States.
Fourthly, America’s inaction in restarting the Mideast peace process has added to local people’s revulsion at America.
The world held high hopes for the peace process when U.S. President Barack Obama took office, but over the past four years the Obama administration made no substantial progress in that regard.
Finally, America proves unable to resolve the bigger issue of culture conflict.
Following America’s deeds in the Middle East over the decades, the cultural gap between America and the Middle East has actually widened.
According to media reports, apart from being angry with the above-mentioned film, the protesters in Benghazi and Cairo “said they were demonstrating against anti-Islamic attitudes in the United States.”
All in all, the attacks serve as a reminder that it is time for Washington to rethink its policies toward the Middle East or it will face a dead end there.
Following the deaths of American ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three members of his staff in a coordinated attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi on September 11, Washington is deploying two Aegis class destroyers off the coast of Libya as well as having already dispatched Marines to Benghazi and elsewhere in the nation.
The guided missile warship USS Laboon is already positioned in the Mediterranean Sea near Libya and USS McFaul is heading to the same destination from the Strait of Gibraltar. Both are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, used in a massive barrage against Libya in the opening hours of so-called Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 19, 2011.
In the words of a Pentagon official cited by CNN, “These ships will give the administration flexibility” in the event Washington orders new attacks inside Libya.
According to the same American news source, “The US Navy typically keeps up to four Aegis-equipped missile warships ships in the eastern Mediterranean to aid in defending Israel and missile defense for southern Europe.”
The latter is a reference to the Obama administration’s European Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization announced to have achieved initial operational capability at its summit in Chicago in May. U.S. guided missile destroyers and cruisers carrying Standard Missile-3 interceptors have been active in the Mediterranean since USS Monterrey was deployed there in March of 2011, the month the U.S. and NATO began over six-months of missile and air attacks against Libya.
According to a Reuters report, eight American Marines were flown into Benghazi by helicopter the day after the attack on the U.S. mission, with two of them being killed and two wounded in a fierce mortar attack on the building.
The Associated Press claimed that the U.S. has deployed 50 members of the elite U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Libya.
U.S. Africa Command’s first war and NATO’s first war in Africa officially ended on October 31 of last year, after the U.S. and Britain launched well over 100 Tomahawk missiles into Libya and NATO followed with over 26,000 air missions, among them almost 9,000 strike sorties, in Operation Unified Protector and the nation’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was brutally murdered outside his hometown of Sirte.
But as with NATO’s military operations from the Balkans to Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, one armed conflict inevitably gives way to another and the Western military bloc continues to execute plans to expand into a global military strike force.