Sunday, November 09, 2014
"Attacks On Israeli Soldiers Legitimate and Not Terrorism"
Saturday, March 05, 2011
New Egypt PM At Tahrir Rally

Thousands of people gathered in Tahrir Square on Friday [Ayman Mohyeldin]
Essam Sharaf Addresses Thousands Of Pro-Democracy Campaigners Who Have Gathered In Centre Of Cairo After Friday Prayers.
Last Modified: 04 Mar 2011 14:03 GMT
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"
He appeared on the stage with Mohammed el-Beltagy, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
![]() |
| Sharaf appeared on stage with a Muslim Brotherhood leader [Reuters] |
"I'm telling you, I came here because I've been assigned a big responsibility, a heavy burden, that requires patience and strong will. And there is no other place other than here than Tahrir, where we can extract this will and determination. We are with you," Sharaf told the crowds gathered in the square.
"You have achieved a big task and the bigger objective is to rebuild Egypt.
"I pray to god that may Almighty God has honoured me with more than I've asked for. And I pray to God to help me to be able to deserve this position. Please, raise your head up, you are an Egyptian.
"I take my goals from you, and I promise you, if I cannot fulfil those objectives, I will come and join you as a protester."
Opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei, who returned to Egypt to join the protests after heading the Vienna-based UN nuclear agency, welcomed Shafiq's resignation.
"We are on the right track, I express my sincere appreciation to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces who have accepted the demand of the people," he wrote on the microblogging site Twitter.
Meanwhile on Friday, Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass was quoted in Egyptian newspapers as saying he would not participate in the new government to be led by Sharaf.
Hawass has been a cabinet minister since January 31 when Mubarak named a new government led by Shafiq.
Hawass said he was no longer able to carry out his duties amid what he called a campaign against him by officials at his ministry.
Sharaf has been charged by the military council with forming a new cabinet.
The council had previously ordered the government to run the country's affairs for six months "or until the end of parliamentary and presidential elections".
Friday, March 04, 2011
Fighting For Freedom Against Tanks, Mercenaries & Bombs

It has become a symbol of the fight against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi: Protesters in the northern town of Al-Bayda faced mercenaries, tanks and bombs, but refused to buckle. Dozens died, but those who were wounded say they will return to the front if needed.
By Matthias Gebauer
In Al-Bayda, Libya
February 26, 2011
Courtesy Of "Der Spiegel Online"
It was 9:30 in the morning on Friday when Abdel Aziz Abdallah learned that his son was dead. The 55-year-old received a phone call from an acquaintance with contacts to the unsteady regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Abdallah's son Farj, just 23 years old, died in a hospital in Tripoli, the acquaintance told his father. His body will soon be brought to his hometown of Al-Bayda in north-eastern Libya for burial.
Abdallah is holding a photo of his son as the first guests arrive at the family's small garage following Friday prayers. "He was still young," he says of his son. "But he died for the right cause. He is a martyr for freedom."
Traces of the brutal fight are everywhere on the white-tiled departure terminal at the regional airport.
The ground is littered with bullet casings, weapons crates and the bloody uniforms of the African mercenaries. Among hundreds of boarding passes and suitcases, one can see trails of blood from the wounded and the dead. Jackets, caps and boots from Gadhafi's soldiers lie among ripped open first aid materials. The walls are pocked with bullet holes -- beneath the windows sit empty munitions crates, many of them once containing artillery shells, bearing Russian writing.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Egypt Police Officer On Lives Lost
Last Modified: 17 Feb 2011 11:41 GMT
Courtesy Of "Al Jazeera"
Egypt paid a huge price, in terms of lives lost, for the revolution.
However, a Brigadier with Cairo's police, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview that many lives could have been saved if police personnel had undergone correct training for riot control.
The government says 365 people died, but scores of people are still missing.
Andrew Simmons reports from Cairo.
Social Networks, Social Revolution
Last Modified: 16 Feb 2011 15:56 GMT
Courtesy Of "Al Jazeera"
Information is power, but 21st century technology has unleashed an information revolution, and now the genie is out of the bottle.
Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have become the new weapons of mass mobilisation; geeks have taken on dictators; bloggers are dissidents; and social networks have become rallying forces for social justice.
As people around the world challenge authorities, from Iran to Tunisia, Egypt to Yemen, entire societies are being transformed as ordinary citizens see the difference, imagine the alternative, and come together to organise for a better future.
So, are social networks triggering social revolution? And where will the next domino fall?
Empire finds out.
Joining Marwan Bishara to discuss these issues are: Carl Bernstein, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist; Amy Goodman, the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!; Professor Emily Bell, the director of digital journalism at Columbia University; Evgeny Morozov, the author of The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom; Professor Clay Shirky, the author of Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.
Learning From Past Revolutions?

Hungarian foreign minister Gyula Horn (R) and his Austrian counterpart Alois Mock (L) cut through a piece of the Iron Curtain in June 1989. But supporters of democracy in Egypt must also cut through a culture of patronage [EPA]
Egyptians Are Treading A Well-Worn Historical Path, Walked In Eastern Europe, Iran, Cuba and Beyond.
By Chris Arsenault
Last Modified: 17 Feb 2011 08:40 GMT
Courtesy Of "Al Jazeera"
As Hungary's political changes began, Istavan Rev watched cautiously. Like thousands of his countrymen, he feared violence, counter-revolution or extremism - products of revolution the world over.
Those networks dominated much of Egypt’s economic life, with government jobs - and even positions on local library boards or sports organisations - doled out to ruling party supporters.
| "Initially, Egypt could potentially focus on job creation schemes in labour intensive industries, brought under the control of a democratic state, rather than private or semi-private patronage networks" Kristian Coates, professor of global governance, London School of Economics |
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Voice Of Freedom Is Calling
Sout Alhoureya
Hany Adel,Amir Eid Hawary on guitars & Sherif Mostafa on keyboards
Video by moustafa fahmy, mohamed khalifa and mohamed shaker
LYRICS
English (incomplete)
"I went down and I said I am not coming back, and I wrote on every street wall that I am not coming back.
"All barriers have been broken down, our weapon was our dream, and the future is crystal clear to us, we have been waiting for a long time, we are still searching for our place, we keep searching for a place we belong too, in every corner in our country.
"The sound of freedom is calling, in every street corner in our country, the sound of freedom is calling..
"We will re-write history, if you are one of us, join us and don't stop us from fulfilling our dream."
(from Al Jazeera live English blog Feb 11)
Espanol
LA VOZ DE LA LIBERTAD (1)
Hemos levantado la cabeza hacia el cielo
Ya no nos importa el hambre
Lo más importante es nuestro derecho
Y escribir nuestra historia con nuestra sangre
Si eras uno de nosotros, deja de despotricar y de decirnos
Que nos vayamos y olvidemos nuestros sueños
No sigas hablando en mi nombre
En todas las calles de mi país, llama la voz de la libertad
LA VOZ DE LA LIBRTAD (2) He bajado a decir que no vuelvo He escrito con mi sangre en todas las calles Nos ha oído el que no oía Y se han levantado todas las prohibiciones Nuestras armas son nuestros sueños Y tenemos un mañana claro ante nosotros Hace tiempo que esperamos Buscamos y no encontramos nuestro sitio En todas las calles de mi país Llama la voz de la libertad
Friday, October 15, 2010
Why Pakistan Won't Act Against The Taliban
By Patrick Cockburn
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Courtesy Of "The Independent"
Pakistan has highlighted the hold it has over the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan by stopping their supply trucks from crossing the Afghan frontier. The ban is in retaliation for US helicopters making an attack on the Pakistani side of the border and killing three Pakistani soldiers.
The US is making a somewhat desperate attempt to close down the Afghan Taliban's bases on the Pakistani side of its 2,500km-long border with Afghanistan. The US military's hope of a year ago that a surge in troop numbers inside Afghanistan would turn the tide in the guerrilla war is fading fast. The Taliban have extended their grip in the north and west of the country. The one option left to America and its allies is to try to force the Pakistan army to act decisively against the Taliban in Pakistan.
It is not going to happen. The Pakistan military has become adept over the past decade at outmanoeuvring Washington on this issue. The Taliban were very much Pakistan's creation in the 1990s, though the relationship has been more distant since 9/11. The army has no interest in putting the Taliban permanently out of business and thereby lose Pakistan's main lever over America.
It is reasonable enough for Pakistan to claim that it could not close the Afghan-Pakistan frontier that runs through some of the toughest terrain on earth and is the same distance as between London and Moscow. If the US, with its massive airpower, cannot shut its side of the border, how come the Pakistani army is expected to be more effective on the Pakistani side? Whatever the direct role of Pakistan in sustaining the insurgency in Afghanistan, the bottom line is the same for the US and its allies now as it was for the Soviet Union in the 1980s. So long as the border with Pakistan remains at least partly open, the insurgents cannot be defeated.
One comic aspect of Pakistan shutting down Nato's supply line through the Khyber pass is that the Taliban themselves may not be too pleased to see the ban go on too long. A senior Pakistan officer told me last week in Islamabad that he reckoned that the Taliban received a large part of the $1,500 protection money paid by trucking companies for every one of the 1,000 or so trucks entering Afghanistan each day with supplies for US and Nato forces. This type of extortion may be as important to the Taliban's revenues as the heroin trade.
Local bandits have also been happy beneficiaries of the 80 per cent of supplies for foreign forces in Afghanistan which come through Pakistani ports and are then driven north to the border. These are supposedly non-lethal goods such as fuel, spare parts and clothing. But raids on warehouses in Peshawar by Pakistani security a few days ago discovered two Nato helicopters waiting for a buyer. Locals tell with some merriment of another looted container that turned out to be entirely filled with whisky bottles. Religiously inclined bandits briefly thought of destroying the cargo, but were swiftly convinced by fellow villagers that it would all be sold to non-Muslims.
David Cameron accused Pakistan of aiding the Taliban during his trip to India several months ago and was criticised for his lack of diplomacy. In this minor row the point was lost that the Pakistan and the Afghan insurgency are effectively joined at the hip. The Pakistani army may squeeze the Taliban but it will never squeeze them to death as the Americans want.
It will not do so because the Afghan Taliban are popular in Pakistan. Most Pakistani soldiers I spoke to were happy to fight the Pakistan Taliban, whom they denounced as parasitic on the reputation of their Afghan equivalents. They see the latter as Pashtun freedom fighters combating a foreign occupation and battling for a share in power against their non-Pashtun rivals such as the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara. A Pakistani colonel commanding Pashtun troops on the border wondered how American and British troops could conciliate Pashtun villagers since "xenophobia is at the heart of Pashtun culture".
A second reason why the Pakistan military is unlikely to attack the Taliban is that we may be seeing the opening moves in the endgame in Afghanistan. The four main players are the US, the Afghan government, the Taliban and Pakistan. If the Pakistani army plays its cards right, then the outcome of any successful peace negotiations would be a power-sharing government in Kabul in which the Taliban would play an important role. Pashtun provinces would come under substantial Taliban control. Pakistan, with its strong influence over the Taliban, would be established as a regional power.
The American drone attacks on North Waziristan are at a level higher than at any time since they started in 2004. The killing of senior members of al-Qa'ida is triumphantly announced. But the border areas of Pakistan-Afghanistan are an unlikely area from which to mastermind a plot to bomb targets in Europe. There are checkpoints on all the roads in and out of the area. Strangers are closely watched. Jihadi fighters are much more likely to make their way overland to Somalia.
The mess which is American and British strategy in Afghanistan is exemplified by the ease with which the supplies of their forces can be choked off by Pakistan. The Pakistani army, which controls foreign and security policy in the country, is not going to kill off the Taliban at the request of the US. The Hamid Karzai government has less support than the communists at the time of the Soviet military withdrawal in 1988. The US and Britain are politically weak because they have such a feeble Afghan partner in Kabul and militarily weak because they cannot shut the Pakistan border. They have no choice but to negotiate.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
US Occupation Transformed Taliban Into Freedom Fighters
By Mustafa Qadri
Sunday 16 May 2010 13.00 BST
Courtesy Of "The Guardian"
They may be repressive fanatics who enslave women and give sanctuary to al-Qaida, but the US-led occupation of Afghanistan has transformed the Taliban into Pashtun freedom fighters. There are two principal reasons for this.
First, despite our best attempts, the foreign troops and the state they prop up are viewed as outsiders who have come not to liberate the country but subjugate it.
Second, so long as our presence in Afghanistan is primarily military, our relationship to ordinary Afghans will be based primarily on violence. Armies, by their very nature, must intimidate and coerce the population into accepting their authority. Despite the talk of winning hearts and minds and civilian surges, much of what we do in Afghanistan creates fear and hostility. It should not surprise us, then, to hear allegations of US and Afghan forces committing "battlefield executions".
As to the first point, the sense of subjugation by foreign powers is exacerbated by the Karzai administration's inability to provide effective governance. Why should we expect a regime built on foreign military intervention and local warlords to have popular support? Locked in understandable revulsion towards the Taliban, the US and its allies forgot they had to offer a better alternative. A revolutionary guerrilla movement, the great intellectual dissident Eqbal Ahmad wrote, concentrate on "out-administering", not on "out-fighting" the enemy.
Although harsh and primitive, the insurgency has gained a reputation for speedy justice that is juxtaposed against the western-backed Karzai regime's endemic corruption. Insurgencies swell, one leader of the Algerian revolution noted in the early 1960s, "where foreign rule is resented, where acute grievances exist and institutional channels for ventilating and satisfying them are ineffective". By that measure, the Afghan insurgency can be expected to grow.
For ordinary Afghans, especially in the Pashtun heartlands of the south and east where the Taliban predominate, US-led forces are feared just as the insurgents are. One key difference, however, is that the Taliban are not foreigners but, as Karzai once remarked, "sons of the soil".
Matthew Hoh, a former US diplomat in Kabul who resigned in protest over the war, noted, correctly, that what we face in Afghanistan is a "Pashtun insurgency … composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups … fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies".
That makes it difficult for Isaf forces to distinguish between friends and foes. "It's a mix of different forces that leads [ethnic Pashtuns] to fight," says Fakir Kakakhel, a young but already experienced war correspondent based in Peshawar. "It is what we call gahirat-a-Pashtoon," he adds, "a term referring to our honour, religion, economic and political independence." Not everyone accepts this premise, but that is not the point. What matters is that our foreign armies can never hope to match this natural home advantage.
The US-led forces, with their vast armoury and an equally vast disconnect from the people they are purportedly trying to protect, have always found it easier to treat everyone as an enemy. That is why the conflict has resulted in a steady stream of civilian casualties. Under pressure to sell this as a noble war, Nato has, as a result, consistently tried to cover up atrocities that are all but inevitable.
There should be no illusions about the Taliban either. Who can forget the destruction of the priceless Buddhas of Bamiyan? Afghans have not forgotten their own atrocities either. All of that was washed away, however, with America's unilateral decision to invade Afghanistan in late 2001. Almost overnight the Taliban were transformed into freedom fighters, as the subsequent occupation of Afghanistan, and pressure on Pakistan to use its blunt military that has led to thousands of deaths, stoked incalculable resentment amongst Pashtuns in both countries.
As Wazma Frogh pointed out, the main alternative to all-out conflict, the opening of peace negotiations, is also fraught with dangers and obstacles. The problem for foreign powers in a foreign land is their limited interest in the welfare of the people whose lands they occupy. There can be no sustainable resolution of the current violence, however, unless and until the locals take the lead in looking for political solutions.
How U.S. Aid Puts A Happy Face On Afghan Occupation
By James A. Lucas
USAID projected that it would build 286 schools by the end of 2004, but only eight were completed. Although the Afghan government could build a school for about $40,000, an international aid agency undertook the task of building 500 schools, at a cost of $250,000 each
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
My Father Was A Freedom Fighter
Told from the perspectives of the refugees, My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is a comprehensive chronicle of the tumultuous history and the struggles of the people of Gaza.


