by Oui
Tue Aug 2nd, 2022 at 01:53:24 PM EST
The Sunday Times reported that the Prince of Wales's Charitable Fund received the money in 2013 from Bakr bin Laden, patriarch of the large and wealthy Saudi family, and his brother Shafiq. Both are half-brothers of the deceased al-Qaida leader, Osama.
Charles, 73, has faced a series of claims about the operation of his charities. Last month the Sunday Times reported he had accepted bags of cash containing $3 million from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar.
London police are currently investigating a separate allegation that people associated with another of the prince's charities, the Prince's Foundation, offered to help a Saudi billionaire secure honors and citizenship in return for donations. Clarence House has said Charles had no knowledge of any such offer.
Talking Persia, Palestine, House of Saud and Bandar | Dec. 9, 2021 |
US-Saudi relations evolved around the price of a barrel of oil, interdependence and a funding of Jihadists and measures to counter Communism. The scourge of state sponsored terrorism until all hell broke loose on September 11th, 2001. The forces of evil and blow-back. Denial, obfuscation, buying PR and falsification on a grand scale. What is Truth or Untruth?
The Middle East has become an accelerator of proxy wars and settling grievances by violence. Not forgiven and not forgotten. The tribal society tries to survive by eliminating the perceived enemy. Unfortunately intellect and wealth seldom go hand in hand, perhaps to the contrary. Surplus wealth feeds corruption. Few players make foreign policy and democracy cannot renew itself to keep that same corruption outside of Parliament, Knesset or U.S. Congress.
Corruption and growth in military arms is the growth factor in economies of the 21th Century. No need to point fingers to Beijing, Moscow, Teheran, Abu Dhabi, London or New York. As long as there is an independent judicial system in place, this would be the last resort to prevent a slide back into a Banana Republic.
The continued contract signing of massive arms into the Gulf Region, the call to abide by Human Rights is quite shallow. The purse of the treasury, jobs and influence seem to win over political leaders quite easily. Recently I have written about the Middle East, JCPOA talks in Vienna, NATO push at the Eastern Front in Europe and I touched a few times on the Saudi bribery of Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
Leader Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood al-Zawahiri Killed
Haqqani terror network responsible for security Zawahiri in Northern Pakistan and in Kabul.
Hardline Haqqani Network Put in Charge of Kabul Security | VOA News - Aug. 19, 2021 |
The Taliban has placed security for the Afghan capital, Kabul, in the hands of senior members of the Haqqani Network, which has close ties with foreign jihadist groups including a long-standing association with al-Qaida.
Western intelligence officials say the assignment is alarming and undercuts Taliban promises to tread a more moderate path than the movement did when it ruled the country from 1996 to 2001.
It also raises the prospect of al-Qaida being welcomed back to Afghanistan, they fear, which would break promises made by Taliban leaders during diplomatic talks in Qatar with U.S. officials last year, not to allow the country to again become a safe haven for foreign jihadists.
On Thursday, Abdullah Abdullah, chairman of Afghanistan's National Reconciliation Council, a body of notables and elders involved in the Qatar talks, met with Khalil al-Rahman Haqqani and his entourage in Kabul. Abdullah later indicated publicly that Khalil al-Rahman Haqqani would be overseeing security in the Afghan capital and had provided assurances that he would "work hard to provide the right security for the citizens of Kabul."
The Role of Egyptians in the 9/11 Attacks Still Reverberates Today | CFR - Sept. 9, 2021 |
Zawahiri, a physician who led Egyptian Islamic Jihad, or al-Jihad, and served time in prison for his alleged role in the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, would join forces with bin Laden in the late 1990s. Zawahiri was less a spiritual influence on bin Laden than an operational one.
At this time, al-Qaeda was essentially a combination of Zawahiri's al-Jihad, Arabs [Mujahideen] who joined the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and bin Laden's ability to raise funds.
The strong contingent of Egyptians applied organizational know-how, financial expertise, and military experience to wage a violent jihad against leaders whom the fighters considered to be un-Islamic and their patrons, especially the United States.
Musharraf's Taliban Problem | CFR - Sept. 11, 2006 |
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is under increasing pressure from NATO and the United States to clamp down on Taliban militants, but internal resistance from Pakistani Islamists is preventing him from acting more forcefully.
October Surprise that Missed: Zawahiri Assassination Attempt kills 80 | Posted @BooMan by Steven D | Oct 30, 2006 |
Earlier today a missile destroyed a madrassah (Islamic school) in Northwestern Pakistan, killing approximately 80 people in an attempt to kill the Al Qaeda's real #2 man, Ayman al Zawahiri. Although initial reports claimed the attack was launched from a Pakistani military helicopter, ABC has confirmed the missile was launched by US forces.
Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News they believe they have "boxed" Zawahiri in a 40-square-mile area between the Khalozai Valley in Bajaur and the village of Pashat in Kunar, Afghanistan. They hope to capture or kill him in the next few months.
Pakistan President Pervez, the Friendly Dictator
Musharraf held responsible for attack on Madrassa Zia-ul-uloom Taleemul Qur'an of Maulvi Liaquat. Facing back-lash.
After almost a decade in power, Musharraf has been accused of being an American puppet and an outright dictator. His fierce "anti-terrorism" policy, favored by the U.S., has led to a violent backlash throughout Pakistan, as witnessed in the events of the Red Mosque siege in Islamabad during July 2007 and the current rebellion in Swat and South Waziristan. Suicide bombings have become a common occurrence in mosques and markets around the country, and Musharraf himself has been the target of at least three assassination attempts.
Comparing the U.S. and Soviet Experiences In Afghanistan | CTC Sentinel - May 2009 |
Comparing the U.S. and Soviet Experiences in Afghanistan | CTC at West Point |
A country rarely fights the same war twice in one generation, especially from opposite sides. Yet that in many ways describes the U.S. role in Afghanistan today. In the 1980s, the Central Intelligence Agency, working from a safe haven in Pakistan, engineered the largest covert operation in its history to help defeat the Soviet 40th Red Army in Afghanistan.
Today, the United States is fighting a Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan that operates from a safe haven in Pakistan. Many suggest that the outcome will be the same for the United States as it was for the Soviet Union--ultimate defeat at the hands of the insurgency. Pakistan's role as a safe haven is remarkably consistent in both conflicts, but focusing exclusively on that similarity misses the fundamental differences between the two wars. This article will address those differences, and will also assess how Pakistan's role is impacting the United States' possibilities for success today.
Goals and Objectives
The first and perhaps most critical difference between the two wars is over goals and objectives. The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 on the side of the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan only after the country had been used as a base for the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The U.S. goal, endorsed by the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was self-defense against a government that had allowed its territory to be used for an act of war against another state. From the beginning, the United States has had no ambition to dominate or subjugate the Afghan people, or to stay in Afghanistan once the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and the Afghan Taliban is defeated. President Barack Obama reiterated this fact in his speech outlining the new U.S. policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on March 27, 2009.
From the diaries ...
Obama and Expansion of Global War on Terror
Pakistan's Security Paradox: Countering and Fomenting Insurgencies | JSOU - Dec. 2009 |
Most American and Pakistani political and military leaders agree that without a credible U.S.-Pakistan partnership, victory against Taliban and Al Qaeda is impossible. For such a partnership, shared goals must be matched by shared threats, and perceptions must follow demonstrable action. Washington and Islamabad agree that Al Qaeda must be defeated. Pakistan's national security calculus--based on India's influence in Afghanistan--however, treats Afghan Taliban as leverage and Pakistani Taliban as enemies of the state. Consequently, Afghan Taliban are provided asylum in Pakistan while they wreak havoc in Afghanistan, and Pakistani Taliban are attacked. While Pakistan has countered and fomented numerous insurgencies, this is the first time that it has done both to achieve its national security goals. This dual policy and disconnect between American and Pakistani threat perceptions is at the heart of Pakistan's security paradox. Pakistan continues to indirectly counter (COIN) and foment (FOIN) insurgency in Afghanistan. Without acknowledging, explicating, and eventually changing this paradox, Afghanistan and Pakistan will continue to descent into chaos.
Why do they hate us?
The question "Why do they hate us?" arose after the September 11, 2001 coordinated simultaneous attacks upon the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and other unknown, unsuccessful targets. There have been several different responses.
One source for the question appears on page 31 of Against All Enemies. Inside America's War on Terror, by Richard A. Clarke.
"I found a moment without meetings [on September 12, 2001] and sat at my computer and began: 'Who did this? Why do they hate us? How will we respond? What can you as an American do to help?
From the diaries in 2005 ...
As USA Burns - Germany & Japan Arise ¶ Pew Research
Ending America's War of Choice in the Middle East | By Jeffrey Sachs - Spring 2018 |
The United States of America has long viewed itself as an exceptional nation, even as God's New Israel, sent to redeem the world. This view has bipartisan support, with deep roots in the country's history, culture, and religious traditions. Recent paeans to American exceptionalism include Ronald Reagan's description of America as "the shining city on the hill," and Madeleine Albright's as the "indispensable nation."
Reagan was harking back to Puritan leader John Winthrop, who quoted Jesus (Matthew 5:14) in declaring the colonial settlements as "a city upon the hill," with the world's eyes upon it. American exceptionalism has been called the nation's civic religion.
One part of American exceptionalism is relentless war, causing historian Harry S. Stout to declare that "the norm of American national life is war." He counts more than 280 "military interventions and nuclear standoffs on every corner of the globe," plus 29 wars with the country's indigenous peoples.
Another related part of the tradition of exceptionalism has been to find divine purpose in war--to put, as Stout said, "America's faith in the institution of war as a divine instrument and sacred mandate to be exercised around the world."
American imperialism has always existed hand-in-hand with American exceptionalism. Since the idea of manifest destiny took hold in the nineteenth century, the United States has looked to expand its presence and influence not just from shore to shore across North America, but to nations around the world. By viewing America as an empire--and by "empire" I mean a state that uses force to impose its direct or indirect rule over another country--we understand that America's current conflicts in the Middle East are not wars of necessity, but imperial wars of choice..
[About the author: A New Foreign Policy Beyond American Exceptionalism
