Iran’s Straight Faced Lies

Iran denies Trump’s claims it sponsors terrorism
By TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF
May 30, 2017
Iran on Monday dismissed US President Donald Trump’s allegations that it is a major sponsor of terrorism as “incorrect and irrelevant.”
Trump, during his recent trip to Saudi Arabia, accused Tehran of spearheading global terror. Along with Saudi King Salman he called for the Islamic Republic to be shunned.
“From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region,” Trump said.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi dismissed the accusations during a press briefing.
“These improper, incorrect and irrelevant positions of certain countries are nothing new and they try to project the blame on others and such remarks are unbelievable and unacceptable,” he said.
According to the Fars news agency, Qassemi also questioned how Tehran could be a sponsor of terror when it had just recently proven to the world its democratic bona fides with its presidential elections.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed Saturday that Saudi Arabia’s monarchy faces “certain downfall” for aligning itself with the US and that its regime could be toppled sooner rather than later.
“They will be gone, they can be toppled and can perish [or be destroyed]… there is no doubt about it… it is certain that it will happen,” Khamnei said during a religious gathering in comments translated from Persian.
In further scathing remarks against Riyadh, Khamenei said the Muslim world has been placed in “grave danger” by “a group of worthless, inept and villainous people [who] are ruling over a community of the Muslim nation, namely the Saudi government.”
Khamenei also said that Saudi Arabia is a “cow being milked” by the United States, a week after the kingdom signed an $110 billion weapons deal with Trump during his visit last Saturday. Private sector and other agreements with the US totaled some $350 billion.
Majority Shiite Iran and predominantly Sunni Saudi Arabia support opposite sites in the conflicts in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East.
AP contributed to this report.

Preparing For World War 3 (Revelation 15)

WORLD WAR 3: INDIA-PAKISTAN NUCLEAR WAR IN THE NEAR FUTURE IS POSSIBLE

By

Rohan Sharma

April 12, 2017

Could India and Pakistan really go to nuclear war? After all, both countries have long been nuclear powers, a restraint that encloses the lives of a combined 1.4 billion people. Both the nations have roughly 120-130 nuclear warheads each and enough delivery systems to deploy these warheads.

MILITARY

India has a clearly larger military with access to more defence reserves, budgets and resources than Pakistan.

ALLIES

Pakistan has historically had US and China support them in all three wars fought in 1965, 1971 and 1999. US will most likely either take a neutral stand or try to get the UN involved to arbitrate. India can always expect support from Russia and Israel in getting appropriate weapons and intel to combat the enemy. Also, India will have a strategic geographic advantage of having an Ally in Afghanistan.

ECONOMY

India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world in the last decade. India’s economic stability will help them sustain the cost of war for much longer than Pakistan.

GOVERNANCE

India has been a stable democracy pretty much since the independence and partition. Unlike Pakistan, there has never been a tug of war between the Government, Military and the Intelligence Agency.

STRATEGY

India has a policy of “No First Attack” if the situation ever boils down to a Nuclear War.
At the end, there is no immediate threat, but along with a strong Indian response guaranteed in the event of cross-border terror adventurism, factors like non-state actors and the rising pitch of rhetoric can lead to disaster.

Prelude To A Nuclear Storm (Revelation 8)

Storm in a teacup

Moeed Yusuf

The writer is a foreign policy expert based in Washington, DC

Last month, Indian-American scholar Vipin Narang stirred a storm by casting doubt on the sanctity of India’s No-First-Use (NFU) pledge on nuclear weapons and positing the possibility of Indian pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan. Since, the Pakistani state and several experts have pointed to the Indian hypocrisy of claiming an NFU that they no longer plan to honour.

I would have usually dismissed the response as business as usual. Worryingly, there is more, it seems. In the past few weeks, I have heard regular references to Narang’s comments in Pakistani policy circles, and even discussions suggesting that Pakistan must consider its implications seriously. The talk continues.

I am alarmed because I found some of these conversations to be strikingly similar to what I heard a decade ago when the Indian army floated its Cold Start doctrine — a Pakistan-specific limited war strategy conceived by the Indian army after the 2001-02 crisis with Pakistan.

In that crisis, India not only discovered that its nuclear weapons have no bearing on the ability of terrorists to strike inside India, but also that its ability to leverage its superior conventional might was neutralised by Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent. Cold Start offered India an option to wage limited war that would punish Pakistan selectively, without bringing Pakistani nuclear use in response into play.

Examine: Has India’s army revived its ‘Cold Start’ doctrine?

In 2007, three years after Cold Start was floated, I, along with several other scholars, analysed this Indian doctrine threadbare. The question posed to me was why Pakistan had not reacted to the doctrine in any visible way. I argued that Pakistan hadn’t and wouldn’t because Cold Start did not alter the military’s Order of Battle, or its ability to neutralise India’s conventional aggression, given that its short lines of communication and forward bases already secured it against such an Indian adventure. I was wrong.

---

The state has never believed in the sanctity of the Indian NFU.

---

Pakistan reacted, in fact overreacted, by developing a fresh tactical nuclear weapon capability. Most objective analysts agree that Cold Start is simply not executable, and even if it were, Pakistan’s conventional forces could easily tackle it. Moreover, the Nasr missile defies decades of experience during the Cold War that confirms the exorbitant risks attached to fielding battlefield nuclear weapons.

For now, Nasr has offered the latest reason for the world to question the dangers posed by Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

Know more: Tactical N-weapons are here to stay, says adviser

The NFU saga is also a storm in a teacup, no more. Vipin Narang is a well-respected Indian-American scholar who neither speaks for the Indian establishment, nor claims to have any clout over it. He made these remarks while speaking on a conference panel that specifically focused on envisioning hypothetical scenarios that entailed nuclear weapons use.

As scholars often do in such gatherings, Narang went for a counterintuitive scenario rather than the run-of-the-mill one that would have envisioned a Pakistani first use, probably of its tactical nuclear weapon against invading Indian conventional forces. Basing his observations on the statements of senior Indian ex-officials, he posited Indian pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Narang clearly wished to provoke an analytical debate on the sanctity of India’s NFU.

But he wasn’t claiming anything had happened in the days preceding his talk that had made such an Indian first-use likelier than before.

I am not arguing that the concern about India’s loosening NFU is made up. Indeed, this has been an ongoing debate in India and several serious voices have hinted that the posture may not be as sacrosanct after all. It is also true that a country’s shift from NFU to first-use is no trivial development. Under certain contexts, it could require the rival to consider significant changes in force planning, postures, deployment protocols, etc.

Luckily, this isn’t the case for Pakistan.

The reality is that the Pakistani nuclear est­a­bl­­ishment and experts alike have never believed in the sanctity of the Indian NFU to begin with. No Pakistani nuclear or conventional choices assume a credible Indian NFU; in fact, all discount it.

This isn’t surprising. After all, even though an NFU directly impacts force requirements and postures, at its heart, it is a declaratory commitment that can never be fully verified. When rivals are as mutually distrusting as India and Pakistan, scepticism about such declarations is only natural.

But this also implies that Pakistan needn’t worry about an Indian shift away from the NFU, much less a fanciful scenario (according to Narang himself) of an Indian pre-emptive strike. This is the time to exhibit the psychological security that behooves a nuclear power confident of its capability. To the contrary, reacting to an independent scholar’s academic analysis in this manner suggests exactly the opposite.

The development of Nasr has already shown the kind of decisions such insecurity can produce. Pakistan must not fall in this trap again.

The writer is a foreign policy expert based in Washington, DC

India Ready To Play Nuclear Hardball (Revelation 8)

Nuclear scholars infer India may be jettisoning no-first-use of nukes against Pakistan

Chidanand Rajghatta | TNN |

WASHINGTON: Nuclear doctrines have come a long way from the time Ronald Reagan declared in 1984 that ''a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.'' Forced to counter Pakistan's persistent use of terrorism under a nuclear cover and the slippery slope that introduced to the region, India may be re-interpreting its no-first-use of nuclear weapons policy to allow pre-emptive strikes against its neighbor, the nuclear pundits community is deducing, based among other things on cryptic statements from the Indian establishment.

The purported evolution of India's nuclear doctrine towards pre-emptive first use is primarily based on throwaway remarks made by former defense minister Manohar Parrikar last November wondering why New Delhi should bind itself to a no-first use policy, instead of saying more cryptically that it is a responsible nuclear power and will not use nuclear weapons irresponsibly. Those remarks (which Parrikar immediately clarified were his personal views), taken together with a more deliberative narration in former Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon's memoir that ''There is a potential gray area as to when India would use nuclear weapons first'' against a nuclear-armed adversary, has led some nuclear scholars to infer that New Delhi is moving its nuclear doctrine in a new direction.

Some of the conjecture was articulated by Vipin Narang, an MIT nuclear proliferation scholar, at a Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington DC, attracting attention of domain experts across the world. Outlining developments in the subcontinent that had led India to conceive of its Cold Start doctrine (a punitive conventional strike) only to have it countered by Pakistan's development of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, Narang said it looked increasingly likely that India may abandon its no-first use police and launch a preemptive strike if it believed Pakistan was going to use any kind of nuclear weapons first.

''India's opening salvo may not be conventional strikes trying to pick off just Nasr batteries in the theatre, but a full 'comprehensive counterforce strike' that attempts to completely disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons so that India does not have to engage in iterative tit-for-tat exchanges and expose its own cities to nuclear destruction,'' Narang said. ''There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first.''

Narang's presentation caught the attention of nuclear pundits and geo-political scholars both in the subcontinent and the U.S, and on Friday, the New York Times highlighted it with the additional speculation that India could be emboldened to evolve its posture by President Trump's softer stance on nuclear proliferation.

''This (allowing a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan) would not formally change India's nuclear doctrine, which bars it from launching a first strike, but would loosen its interpretation to deem pre-emptive strikes as defensive,'' the paper said. ''It would also change India's likely targets, in the event of a war, to make a nuclear exchange more winnable and, therefore, more thinkable.''

Narang's inference about a possible change in India's nuclear posture vis-a-vis Pakistan brought a more visceral reaction from Islamabad.

''For Pakistan, these disclosures do not come as a surprise since Indian NFU is really a sham and political rhetoric. Besides, no responsible defence planners any where would accept political assertions from the opponent, especially since these are non-verifiable. By spilling the beans, Narang has only validated Pakistan's deterrence policy,'' former Pakistani diplomat and nuclear negotiator Zamir Akram wrote, outlining and rationalizing Pakistan full-spectrum deterrence, including a second-strike capability, while warning that ''for every move there is a counter move.''

India Becomes A Nuckear Threat

India could launch ‘preemptive’ nuclear strike against Pakistan if threatened, says expert

PTI

India could launch a preemptive first strike against Pakistan if it feared a nuclear attack was imminent, reversing its well-known no-first-use policy, according to a leading nuclear strategist.

This first strike, however, will not be aimed at urban centres and conventional targets but against Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal. The strategic assessment is in clear contrast to New Delhi’s ‘no-first strike’ policy of 2003.

“There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first,” Vipin Narang, a nuclear strategist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said at a conference on nuclear policy hosted by Carnegie, a think tank, on Monday, according to the Hindustan Times.

India would launch “a full ‘comprehensive counterforce strike’ that attempts to completely disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons,” Dr Narang said.

He explained that policy-makers in New Delhi decided to go for the nuclear option to ensure that “India does not have to engage in iterative tit-for-tat exchanges and expose its own cities to nuclear destruction”.

New Delhi declared the ‘no-first strike’ policy, undertaking not to start a nuclear war in a neighbourhood packed with nuclear actors such as China and Pakistan.

Narang said he was not basing the assessment on fringe extreme voices such as those of Bharat Karnad or retired Indian Army officers frustrated by the lack of resolve they believe their government had shown in multiple provocations.

This assessment, he said, was based on what he learned from no less than a former Strategic Forces Command C-in-C Lt Gen B.S. Nagal and from the highly respected and influential former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon.

“We may be witnessing … a ‘decoupling’ of Indian nuclear strategy between China and Pakistan. The force requirements India needs to credibly threaten assured retaliation against China may allow it to pursue more aggressive strategies — such as escalation dominance or a ‘splendid first strike’— against Pakistan,” Dr Narang said.

The MIT expert argued that the conventional wisdom that a nuclear war in South Asia could start with a terrorist attack from Pakistan may no longer be valid.

Relations between the neighbours are at the lowest ebb since the attack on Indian military base of Uri in occupied Kashmir last year. Following the attack, India claimed to have carried out ‘surgical strikes’ against militant launch pads in Kashmir, which were denied by the government, as well as the military.

However, in February, both countries extended a bilateral pact, dealing with reducing the risk of nuclear weapon-related accidents including a war, for a period of five years.

India Will Change Its No First Nuke Policy (Revelation 8)

India may abandon its 'no first use' nuclear policy: Expert

By PTI | Updated: Mar 21, 2017, 12.19 PM IST

During the 2017 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, Narang said, "There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first".

WASHINGTON: India may abandon its 'no first use' nuclear policy and launch a preemptive strike against Pakistan if it feared that Islamabad was likely to use the weapons first, a top nuclear expert on South Asia has claimed.

The remarks by Vipin Narang, an expert on South Asian nuclear strategy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, before a Washington audience was though a negation of India's stated policy of 'no first use'.

During the 2017 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, Narang said, "There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first".

He said India "may" abandon the policy and launch a preemptive strike against Pakistan if it believed that Pakistan was going to use nuclear weapons or most likely the tactical nuclear weapons against it.

But, he pointed out, India's preemptive strike may not be conventional strikes and would also be aimed at Pakistan's missiles launchers for tactical battlefield nuclear warheads.

"India's opening salvo may not be conventional strikes trying to pick off just Nasr batteries in the theatre, but a full 'comprehensive counterforce strike' that attempts to completely disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons so that India does not have to engage in iterative tit-for-tat exchanges and expose its own cities to nuclear destruction," Narang said.

He said this thinking surfaces not from fringe extreme voices or retired Indian Army officers frustrated by the lack of resolve they believe their government has shown in multiple provocations, but from no less than a former Commander of India's Strategic Forces, Lt Gen BS Nagal.

It also comes perhaps more importantly and authoritatively, from the highly-respected and influential former national security adviser Shivshankar Menon in his 2016 book 'Choices: Inside the Making of Indian Foreign Policy', the nuclear strategist said.

"Serious voices, who cannot be ignored, seem to suggest that this is where India may be heading, and certainly wants to head," Narang said.

"So our conventional understanding of South Asia's nuclear dynamics and who, in fact, might use nuclear weapons first and in what mode may need a hard rethink given these emerging authoritative voices in India who are not content to cede the nuclear initiative to Pakistan," he said, adding that this would mark a major shift in Indian strategy if implemented.

"In short, we may be witnessing what I call a 'decoupling' of Indian nuclear strategy between China and Pakistan."

Sameer Lalwani, senior associate and deputy director South Asia at the Stimson Center, an American think-tank, said Narang's remarks challenged the conventional wisdom of South Asia's strategic stability problem.

Based on recent statements and writings of high-level national security officials (serving and retired), Narang argued that India may be exhibiting a "seismic shift" in its nuclear strategy from 'no first use' to a preemptive nuclear counterforce allowing for escalation dominance or a "splendid first strike" against Pakistan, Lalwani said.

India Nuclear Horn Goes Supersonic

India test-fires supersonic cruise missile
Pakistan has already urges world to check Indian conventional, nuclear arms build-up
India on Saturday test-fired the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, which is ‘capable’ of carrying a warhead of 300kg, from a test range along the Odisha coast, the Press Trust of India news agency reported.

The cruise missile was test fired from a mobile launcher from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur near Balasore in Odisha at about 11.33am, the news service quoted unnamed officials of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as saying. “It was an ‘excellent’ launch and a great success,” they said.

The PTI reported that the supersonic missile was capable of carrying a warhead of 300kg. “The two-stage missile, one being solid and the second one ramjet liquid propellant, has already been inducted into the army and navy, while the air force version is in final stage of trial,” the officials said. The Indian Army is already equipped with three regiments of Block III version of Brahmos missiles.

On Thursday, Foreign Office spokesman Nafees Zakaria said in Islamabad that India’s massive arms build-up and testing of inter-continental ballistic missiles was a source of concern for the region. However, Pakistan would not indulge in the arms race, he said. “Pakistan will maintain minimum deterrence capability to safeguard its national security,” he said.

“India’s massive arms buying spree, making it one of the top arms importers in the world, was driven by its desire for regional hegemony and global power status,” he said. On the other hand, Pakistan had been compelled to acquire and maintain a deterrent capability to ensure its national security, he said, adding that Pakistan never wanted to engage in any kind of arms race, nuclear or conventional.

Several international reports and independent observers had drawn attention to the rapid expansion in India’s capability to produce fissile material for military use, which had been made possible by the 2008 NSG waiver granted to India without appropriate non-proliferation safeguards and the subsequent nuclear deals struck with different countries.

In February, the Foreign Office urged the international community to check Indian conventional and nuclear arms build-up that had caused strategic anxiety in the region. “With conventional weapons balance already disturbed, India’s nuclear weapons build-up has dangerous proportions to tip the strategic balance and endanger peace of the region and beyond,” he said.

The Nuclear Horns of South Asia

OPINION | Nuclearization of Indian Ocean: A Pakistan's Perspective 

By Beenish Altaf

The emanating threat to peace of Indian Ocean is mainly due to the nuclearization initiated by Indians. Out of which, the chief elements or the challenges to peace in the ocean that could be counted among are listed as its militarization, increased missile capabilities, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and power projection by foreign militaries, in addition to piracy, illegal fishing, human, drugs and arms smuggling, maritime pollution and climate change.
The Indian Ocean, geo-strategically is present at the world’s most fundamental part. It is the third largest oceanic division of the world and commands strategically important sea lanes of communication (SLOCs) that link the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia with Europe, East Asia, and the US. Around 80 percent of the world’s energy trade passes through the choke points of this region.

Pakistan is concerned with the alarming modernization of India’s exasperated capabilities with regards to its missile and nuclear weapons. It would be pertinent to mention here that with the demonstration of the test launch of the K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on March 31, 2016, India’s movement towards fielding an undersea deterrent is well taken. It was an indigenously built nuclear-powered submarine, the INS Arihant.

Due to the India’s ‘unrestrained behavior’, it became necessary for Pakistan to take a step forward towards a sea-based deterrent. Therefore, for this reason, Pakistan decided over an equivalent measure and successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile, Babur-III on January 9, 2017, that is considered a compelled step.

Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj Aziz while speaking at an international forum in Pakistan said that this trend is likely to intensify in the coming years. And that “we are aware of our national interests and every effort will be made to strengthen our capacity to ensure that we remain ready to meet the emerging maritime security challenges. For us, to remain oblivious of the developments taking place in the Indian Ocean region is not an option.”
A statement issued by the Foreign Office states, “The reported Indian tests of a submarine-launched ballistic missile and development of a nuclear submarine fleet are serious developments, which impact the delicate strategic balance in the region. It has resulted in the nuclearization of the Indian Ocean.” India wants to exercise its supremacy in the whole region by its nuclearization of Indian Ocean. It will certainly exacerbate the already fragile strategic balance in South Asia.
There is another concern gaining hype nowadays regarding the un-demarcated borders in the Sir Creek. Pakistan has to be more careful about defending its borders, land or sea routes because if the communication link with the vessel is disrupted, it could prove to be extremely risky. Consequently, a good amount of naval pressure is necessary to keep our sea lanes open and safe. Nevertheless, the Sir Creek border issue has a potential to cast a shadow on the maritime security.

Projection of military and nuclear power into the seas will grip the region into an arms race and inevitably place it at the risk of a nuclear showdown. Mr. Aziz said that the Indian navy’s substantial expansion was a cause for concern for Pakistan and that Pakistan has a strategic stake in the peaceful navigation and security of the Indian Ocean region.

The Indian Ocean region is being taken with a sense of war whereas it is not all about war it has a potential of economic growth as well. It is a catalyst for peace and prosperity, cooperation, collaboration, connectivity, regional stability, and security. Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Muhammad Zakaullah emphasized the substantial role being played by the Pakistan Navy in the sustenance of peace and stability in the Indian Ocean region that operationalisation of the CPEC and the Gwadar Port would lead to an exponential increase in maritime activities of the country’s coast. “Consequently, responsibilities of Pakistan Navy for maintaining a secure maritime environment will also increase manifold. The Recent establishment of the Task Force-88 is also a step forward in this regard.”

Ironically, India is heading day by day towards boosting massively its missile, conventional and unconventional capabilities. Pakistan has declared its intention of highlighting the dangerous implications of India’s plans to nuclearize the Indian Ocean at all relevant international fora through a press release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Last but not the least, India is playing a dangerous game in pursuit of achieving the status of a great power and regional hegemony. As a result, it is the collective responsibility of all the involving states to share the burden to maintain security in the region keeping and acknowledging it as a common goal.

India Prepares For Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

India gears up to fight nuclear attacks

THE ASIAN AGE. | SANJIB KR BARUAH

Published : Mar 5, 2017, 6:34 am IST

Updated : Mar 5, 2017, 6:49 am IST

DRDO hands over to Army recce vehicle to counter chemical, biological hits too.

New Delhi: The strong possibility that chemical weapons were used in Wednesday’s attacks in Afghanistan has brought the dangerous reality to India’s doorsteps. Pakistan’s growing arsenal of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons and the declared intent of terror outfits like Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS to acquire non-conventional weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, has resonated very strongly in India and rapid steps are already underway to combat such attacks, be it from state or non-state actors.

“We have not faced nuclear or chemical attacks, but we will have to be prepared at every moment to deal with the issue,” defence minister Manohar Parrikar said on Thursd-ay. Alluding to reports of chemical attacks by the Taliban in Afghanistan on Wednesday, he said: “While these reports are yet to be confirmed, I have seen photographs of the local population suffering from blisters and burns and they are quite distressing.”

Significantly on Thursd-ay itself, the state-owned Defence Research and De-velopment Organisation (DRDO) handed over to the Army the NBC (nuc-lear, biological and chemical) Recce Vehicle which is all set to be deployed.

Resembling a battle tank and equipped with GPS navigation, meteorological sensors and radiation sensors, the NBC Recce Vehicle is capable of conducting effective reconnaissance of radiological and chemically contaminated areas, demarcation of contaminated zones, real-time communication of digital data after analysing the solid and liquid samples to the supported formation.

“The utility of the NBC Recce Vehicle goes beyond warfare and will prove to be indispensable in any NBC disaster situation too,” said a source who has worked on the development of the vehicle.

Going beyond, the DRDO has also introduced a bouquet of radio-protectors and radio-mitigator drugs that are required to reduce the effects of gamma irradiation substantially in the aftermath of a nuclear, chemical and biological attack.

In a nuclear disaster, a person is exposed to gam-ma radiations. In high dos-es, radiation syndromes can kill in hours to days to a few months, while in low doses, genetic and cancer disorders may result.

Radio-protectors and radio-mitigator drugs are required to reduce the effects of gamma irradiation substantially. The drugs have been put to Drug Controller General for special approvals, while provisioning to Indian armed forces has already started as these are life-saving drugs.

“The DRDO has also provided a NBC kit to the Indian defence forces although it has been segregated into elements for field use and in the hospital on the advice of the Army authorities,” said a top DRDO official on condition of anonymity.

Pakistani Horn Continues To Harbor Terrorists (Daniel 8)

Terrorist safe havens in Pakistan a serious challenge: US

Last Updated: Saturday, January 30, 2016 – 15:09

Washington: A top US general has said it is difficult to destroy the “enemy” in Afghanistan if terror groups like the Haqqani network and Taliban have sanctuaries in Pakistan.

“When an enemy enjoys sanctuary like that, it’s very difficult to defeat them,” General John “Mick” Nicholson, who has been nominated by the Pentagon as Commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, during confirmation hearing yesterday.

Nicholson said he views the terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan as a serious problem.
“This (terrorist safe havens) has been one of the principal challenges. It’s a sanctuary that our enemies, in particular the Haqqani Network, have enjoyed inside Pakistan,” he said responding to a question from Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Committee.

Critical of the Af-Pak policy of the Obama Administration, McCain also demanded an immediately halt to US troop withdrawals and eliminate any target date for withdrawal.
Responding to the question, Nicholson said it is difficult to defeat the Taliban and Haqqani network when they enjoy terrorist safe haven, and as such, it is important to “enlist” Pakistan in the fight against terrorism.

“In this case, Pakistan, to go after those sanctuaries, and then the other important piece is to build up the defence capacity of the Afghans so that they can keep that level of violence down to a manageable level,” the general said.

Earlier, in a written response to questions, Nicholson asked Pakistan to take persistent action against the Taliban, particularly the Haqqani Network.

“Pakistan’s pressure on the Taliban combined with its support to the reconciliation process are mutually reinforcing,” he added.

Haqqani network, which is linked to al-Qaeda has also been blamed for several deadly attacks against Western and Indian interests in Afghanistan, including the 2008 bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul.

ISIS Prepares To Attack Again (Daniel 8:10)

ISIS planning coordinated attacks across Europe: Report

Last Updated: Saturday, December 19, 2015 - 17:54

London: The dreaded terror group Islamic State (ISIS) is planning a new coordinated attack across Europe, according to a former militant linked to the outfit.

The horrifying plan has been revealed after a former ISIS terrorist, identified only as Harry S, escaped the terror group and is now being questioned by authorities in Germany, the 'Daily Express' reported.

The German terrorist witnessed beheadings and executions in Syria for three months but fled after he could no longer stand its brutality.

"They want something that happens everywhere at the same time. All you need is to take a big knife, and go down to the streets and slighter every infidel you encounter," he has reportedly told his interrogators.

Harry S admitted he had been leading mass executions and holding weekly ideological training sessions in Raqqa, Syria.

In a video in May, he was spotted with the ISIS flag before other German-speaking militants called on supporters across the world to kill "infidels". The video ended with the militants shooting two prisoners dead, the newspaper reported.

Harry S now stands accused of membership of a terror group and faces a lengthy prison sentence if convicted.

IS has claimed responsibility for the November 13 Paris terror attacks which killed 129 people.

PTI

The Pakistani Paradigm: Anti + Terrorism

 
Pakistan joins Saudi counter-terror alliance

Posted on December 17, 2015 by Farah Jamil in Editors Pick, Latest, National, World
Pakistan on Thursday confirmed joining the Saudi Arabia’s 34-nation coalition against terrorism, however it said the extent of participation in counter-terrorism activities was yet to be decided.
“Yes, we are part of it [coalition]. We have decided, and we welcome it,” the Foreign Office Spokesman said in response to a question whether Pakistan was part of the alliance announced by Saudi Arabia against terrorism.

Spokesman Qazi Khalilullah in a weekly media briefing here at the Foreign Office said, “We are participating in this alliance against terrorism. The only thing that needs to be decided is the extent of our participation in various activities of the alliance

The Foreign Office Spokesman said that Pakistan consistently supported all regional and international efforts to combat militancy, extremism and terrorism and added that Pakistan in this context had welcomed the formation of Saudi alliance.

He said that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia enjoyed close brotherly relations and had been cooperating with each other in various fields including fight against terrorism.

“We maintain close contacts with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia bilaterally and within the framework of OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] and have been exchanging ideas on how to deal with the increasing threats posed by terrorists and extremist mindset to the region,” he said.

To a query about non-inclusion of other countries including Iran and Syria in the alliance, he said he would not comment on it and it was upto these countries how they respond to various developments taking place at regional and international levels.

He said the focus of the alliance was on countering terrorism and for this reason, Pakistan was supporting it.

The Spokesperson categorically dismissed a news item published in an English daily on Wednesday which quoted the Foreign Secretary as saying that Pakistan was surprised to its inclusion in 34-nation alliance announced by Saudi Arabia.

“We reject the remarks attributed to the Foreign Secretary as incorrect and misleading,” he said, adding that the correspondent had misquoted the Foreign Secretary.

He clarified that in response to questions during informal interaction with journalists on December 15, the Foreign Secretary had said that Pakistan was ascertaining the details announced by Saudi Arabia concerning the alliance against terrorism.

The Spokesman said later in the day, the Foreign Office had issued a formal response that also mentioned Pakistan welcoming the alliance.

“We respect views and analysis of all correspondents, however we expect that they will not be mixed with facts to mislead the readers particularly about Pakistan’s relations with important countries,” he said.

He said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be conveying its concern to the management of the newspaper regarding the misleading report by its correspondent.

The Foreign Office Spokesman to a query about changing the title of Pak-India Composite Dialogue to Comprehensive Dialogue, said all the elements that were part of the former were also part of the latter announced on December 9.

“The important thing is to have a dialogue, which is result- oriented and sustained for which we are aiming for,” he said.

About the Heart of Asia Conference held in Islamabad, he said several meetings including trilateral and quadrilateral settings were held on the sidelines of the Conference which were very successful.
He said the meetings had a very positive outcome in developing a broad consensus on resuming peace process and the four countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and the United States would collaborate in devising a future framework on peace in Afghanistan.

The Spokesman mentioned that the leadership of Pakistani and Afghan representatives met on the sidelines of Conference and discussed all issues that needed attention of both the countries in order to further enhance their relations.

He said Pakistan attached very high importance to peace and stability in Afghanistan and had also been supporting peace talks.

“The interest of both countries are served better by cooperating rather than engaging in blame game,” he said.

To a question about the concern expressed by the U.S lawmakers about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, the Spokesman said Pakistan was a responsible nuclear state and was committed to maintaining full spectrum credible minimum deterrence.

He categorically stated that the programme was for the country’s defence.

About Pakistan’s position on a recent incident in Nigeria where many Shiite were killed, the Spokesman said he would check the media reports and would also seek views from the country’s mission abroad.

He said Pakistan’s position was clear that all citizens including minorities had equal rights regardless of their whatsoever religious affinities.
AFP

The Saudi’s Wahhabist Hypocrisy (Dan 7)

In this Thursday, Sept. 17, 2015 file photo, Saudi security forces take part in a military parade in preparation for the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Saudi Arabia Forms Muslim Anti-Terror Coalition

The 34-member bloc will fight terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan, deputy crown prince says

By AHMED AL OMRAN in Riyadh and ASA FITCH in Dubai
Dec. 15, 2015 9:59 a.m. ET

Saudi Arabia’s plan to form a Muslim antiterrorism coalition has underlined a new muscular foreign policy aimed at confronting the extremist group Islamic State, even at the risk of wading deeper into the region’s messiest conflicts.

Calling terrorism a “disease which affected the Islamic world first before the international community as a whole,” Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said Tuesday the coalition of 34 Muslim states would fight the scourge in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.

Besides the 34 Muslim nations who signed up to the coalition, Riyadh said more than 10 other countries, including Indonesia, expressed their support of the new bloc. The kingdom’s main rival Iran, however, was absent from the list.

The formation of the coalition followed criticism from U.S. and European politicians that Saudi Arabia hasn’t done enough to fight Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Islamic State militants took over large swaths of Iraq and Syria last year and are the focus of the U.S.-led air campaign in which Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries are participating.

Some Saudis believe the time has come to show the government is serious about fighting Islamic State, a Sunni militant group that has roots in its own region and religion.

Islamic State “is the seed of evil that we have let out of the can in the Middle East,” Prince Turki Al Faisal, chairman of King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, told the Arab Strategy Forum in Dubai. “It’s our responsibility to vanquish it.”

But it is also unclear what Saudi Arabia is asking the other countries to do—whether it is a loose grouping to talk strategy and share intelligence or the first step to establishing an actual fighting force.

The new Saudi-led coalition will have a joint command center in Riyadh to “coordinate” and develop means to fight terrorism militarily and ideologically, Prince Mohammed told a hastily called news conference at a Riyadh air base early Tuesday morning.

Some countries that were listed as members expressed willingness to review such a proposal but didn’t appear to make any formal commitment to a military coalition.

Turkey, the only country in the alliance that is also a NATO member, welcomed the new coalition. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Tuesday that “the best response to those striving to associate terrorism and Islam is for nations of Islam to present a unified voice against terrorism”
Meanwhile, Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad Momani said the war against terrorism was “our war and the Muslims’ war,” according to a statement carried by the official Petra news agency.

William Hague, a former U.K. foreign secretary, told the Arab Strategy Forum in Dubai on Tuesday that more Arab involvement was needed to combat Islamic State and counter the extremist narrative that it was at war with the West. Making it effective required coordination, however, he said.
“To make something like NATO, you really have to decide to act together…to send people to act and die in another country,” Mr. Hague said.

For Riyadh, the risks of such aggressive military action on a broad scale have become apparent in Yemen.

The Yemen coalition, composed of mostly Sunni Muslim Arab allies, began bombing the Houthis from the air on March 26. It deployed a ground force in July, soon recapturing the southern city of Aden and pushing toward the capital, San’a.

The campaign, however, has been costly for the Saudi government, both in financial and human terms. Human rights groups have also criticized the coalition for the large number of civilian casualties caused by airstrikes and fighting on the ground. The United Nations estimates the death toll of the war at more than 5,800 people.

Many observers see the war in Yemen as the outgrowth of a regional confrontation between Sunni Muslim states and mainly Shiite Iran. Saudi Arabia and its allies support Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi while Iran gives political backing—some say military support—to the Houthis, a group whose members adhere to the Zaidi offshoot of Shiite Islam.

A seven-day cease-fire started in Yemen at noon Tuesday, local time, as United Nations-mediated peace talks began in Geneva. Fighting was still taking place in the country’s oil-rich Marib province and parts of the south in the hours leading up to the pause, according to local security officials.

Christopher Davidson, a professor at Durham University in the U.K. who specializes in Gulf affairs, said the new alliance was primarily a way for Saudi Arabia to generate positive news about its role in international affairs following recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. Both of the assailants in the California attack had spent time in the kingdom.

Yet divisions within the participating countries of the Islamic coalition don’t bode well for its effectiveness, he said.

“The constituent members of the new coalition mostly fall on the Sunni side of the sectarian fault-line and are themselves deeply divided on a number of key policy areas,” Mr. Davidson said.

“The probability that it can become an effective international security alliance is therefore almost zero.”

—Peter Wonacott in Dubai and Emre Peker in Istanbul contributed to this article.

Pakistani Horn Continues To Fund Terrorism (Daniel 8)

Elements in Pakistan continue to be major source of terrorist financing

Posted by New Delhi Times Bureau

A report by the US Treasury Department in Washington blames unidentified elements in Pakistan as major sources of terrorist financing. A British government report also found evidence of such funding via donations from Pakistan and Afghanistan to terrorist groups in Syria. Terrorist financing also became the focus of discussions at a White House mid-November meeting between US security officials and Pakistani Army Chief Gen Raheel Sharif. ”Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, 2015″ report found the Haqqani Network generating funds from a wide range of sources in Pakistan and Afghanistan including businesses, smuggling, extortion, and kidnapping for ransom.

The Lashkar-e-Taiba receives funds from within Pakistan, through charitable front organisations like Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD) and Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF) and additional funds from commercial ventures and private donations during Ramazan and sale of animal hides during the Eid-ul-Azha.

Faisal Shahzad, who tried to blow New York’s Times Square, received funds from a TTP supporter in Pakistan. Saifullah Anjum Ranjha-a Pakistani national- pleaded guilty in US to laundering money and financing terror through international drug trafficking and international smuggling of counterfeit cigarettes and weapons. Another Pakistani is accused of manufacturing heroin in clandestine laboratories along the Afghan border and leading one of the largest heroin trafficking organisations in the world. He used to send the drug to more than 20 countries, including the United States. ‘Proceeds from his heroin trafficking were then used to support high-level members of the Taliban in furtherance of their insurgency in Afghanistan’- revealed the report.

In Pakistan the donations for ‘charity’ are usually diverted, drugs are sold, and legitimate-looking store fronts are used to collect funds, as small businesses are forced to pay protection money. Haqqani network operates in Afghanistan with Pakistan’s complicity. The group is involved in opium trade in Afghanistan as opium money directly funds warlords and escalates militancy. Such material evidences notwithstanding, Pakistan government has resorted to habitual denial. In spite of knowing the truth it refuses to accept, as intention is not honest. Unfortunately, there seems to be no change in its policy on terror as it still refuses to learn from past mistakes. When will Pakistan shun terror and start living as humans? Time is now ripe for a fundamental change in Pak society.

It is never too late for Pakistan to change its policy for the better.The earlier it is done, the better. Stifling terror financing should be made a part of National Action Plan. Investments in secular education and making normal education compulsory for Madrasas could reverse the current trend of indoctrination leading to religious fundamentalism. Audit of Madrass funds- Lal Masjid in particular- must be made mandatory. Strict implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act (1997)- especially of Section 11EEEE- for suspected involvement in terror financing and embezzlement of funds will do wonders.

Pakistan is a country where making a fake id, a fake passport, fake documentation, or opening account in any bank is damn easy. Currently many tools are available to track terror funds; what is required is the strong will to implement. Strengthening the IT and surveillance infrastructure, as well as stringent enforcement of law to intercept and interpret data are needed. Corrupt politicians also provide moral and financial support to terrorists. The main financiers of terror feel emboldened when leaders of known US-designated terrorist organisations are roaming free and taking out rallies. The government’s capacity and intention to fight terror has lost its credibility. Pakistan must seriously introspect on the direction it wants its society to move. Once Pakistan government stops playing the double game and ceases to support terrorists, relationship with neighbours-India, Afghanistan and Iran- will definitely improve.

The Antichrist Calls Kerry A Terrorist (Revelation 13)

Muqtada Sadr describes Kerry as terrorist

November 28, 2015 – 7:06 PM
News Code : 721986Source : Agencies

On Thursday the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr described the US Secretary of State John Kerry as a “terrorist”, pointing out that Kerry does not have the right to rate who is the “terrorist,” while stressed that Israel is “a spoiled son” for America.

Sadr said in response to a question about his position regarding the US Secretary of State John Kerry statement, who described the “knives revolution” as a “terrorist act:” “We do not need his silly and biased opinion; he doesn’t have the right to rate who is the terrorist.”

It is noteworthy that US Secretary of State John Kerry described earlier the wave of attacks with knives, which has been carried out by Palestinians, as “terrorism” that must be condemned.

The Inevitable Nuclear Terrorist Attack (Revelation 15:2)

Fuel For a Nuclear Bomb Is Probably on the Black Market Right Now

And it often originates from one site in Russia.

MAXIM MAN

November 12, 2015

 

By Steve Huff

 

It’s the kind of scenario that fueled the novels of the late Tom Clancy: fuel that could form the core of a nuclear weapon on the black market, for sale to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, as a joint report from The Center for Public Integrity and Vice News has revealed, this fictional scenario is very real — and U.S. security officials have been in a constant state of concern about it for years.

The detailed report begins with an account of a failed attempt that occurred in Moldova in 2011 to pass off 22 pounds of highly enriched uranium for a few hundred thousand dollars. The transaction was actually a sting, and it ultimately led to the imprisonment of a Moldovan lawyer named Teodor Chetrus for attempting to smuggle the material. Chetrus’s arrest, however, did nothing to ease Western worries about a terrorist group or rogue nation acquiring the ability to make their own nuclear bomb:

Instead, it stoked them, because the resulting international probe into the case has sparked fresh, and previously unreported worries, that thieves inside of Russia somehow made off years ago with a full bomb’s worth of highly enriched uranium. Western spies fear the thieves have been doggedly looking for a buyer for the past sixteen years, by repeatedly dangling in front of them identical, genuine samples of that highly valuable material.

Five current or former U.S. officials who have tracked nuclear smuggling, and who declined to be named because this assessment is classified, said it is now a consensus view within the intelligence community.

But wait, it gets worse! According to this report, Western intelligence has no idea “exactly who has this nuclear explosive material, and where they may be.”
Journalists Douglas Birch and R. Jeffrey Smith write that the anxieties regarding nuclear materials in the wild go back some 16 years. Since 1999, there have been at least three incidents in which “identically packaged containers of highly-enriched uranium have been seized by authorities outside of Russia.”

All those packages have been forensically traced to the early 1990s and one source: the Mayak Production Association, a giant nuclear facility in the Ural Mountains.

One quote from the report ratchets up the pucker factor considerably while emphasizing exactly why this is the stuff of military suspense fiction:

While seven of those involved in the smuggling have so far been prosecuted in Bulgaria, France and Moldova, officials say they are just low-level members of a shadowy international ring with Moldovan and Russian connections, all working for a person or persons whose identity remains cloaked.

So far, efforts at stopping the spread of these materials has only taken small-time go-betweens out of commission. The masterminds are still out there.

Reading the report in full is worth the time, if you don’t want to sleep well for a while. It will make you wish James Bond was real.

Small Horn Terrorizes The Russian Horn (Daniel 8:9)

Bomb planted by ISIS on aircraft likely caused Russian plane crash

Thursday, 5 November 2015 – 8:51am IST | Place: New York | Agency: Reuters

 

The US and European security sources stressed they had reached no final conclusions about the crash.

Debris of the Russian plane crash Reuters

Evidence now suggests that a bomb planted by the Islamic State militant group is the likely cause of last weekend’s crash of a Russian airliner over Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, US and European security sources said on Wednesday.

Islamic State, which controls swathes of Iraq and Syria and is battling the Egyptian army in the Sinai Peninsula, said again on Wednesday it brought down the airplane, adding it would eventually tell the world how it carried out the attack.

The Airbus A321M <AIR.PA> crashed on Saturday in the Sinai Peninsula shortly after taking off from the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on its way to the Russian city of St Petersburg, killing all 224 people on board.

The US and European security sources stressed they had reached no final conclusions about the crash. Britain on Wednesday cited the likely possibility of an explosive device as the cause of the crash, but made no mention of any group that may have been responsible.

“We have concluded that there is a significant possibility that the crash was caused by an explosive device on board the aircraft,” Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said after a meeting of the government’s crisis response committee chaired by Prime Minister David Cameron.

Hammond’s remarks came as Britain prepares to host a visit by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi this week. Egypt, a close ally of the United States and the most populous Arab country, dismissed a similar claim of responsibility for the crash by Islamic State on Saturday.

“It is believed to be an explosion but what kind is not clear. There is an examination of the sand at the crash site to try and determine if it was a bomb,” said an Egyptian source who is close to the team investigating the black boxes.

“There are forensic investigations underway at the crash site. That will help determine the cause, to see if traces of explosives are found.” Sisi has described Islamist militancy as an existential threat to the Arab world and the West and has repeatedly called for greater international efforts to combat the militants.

Hammond said Britain is “advising against all but essential travel by air through Sharm el-Sheikh airport. That means that there will be no UK passenger flights out to Sharm el-Sheikh from now.” Remarks earlier on Wednesday by Britain’s Cameron, who was due to hold talks in London with Sisi on Thursday, of concerns “the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device” drew criticism from Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.

He told CNN he was “somewhat surprised” by the British statement. “This is a matter for the investigation to clarify and we should not prejudge or take any measures that might have implications,” Shoukry said. “Implication also that the fact that a very large number of Egyptians who rely heavily on the tourist industry.”

Britain said it was working with airlines and Egyptian authorities to put in place additional security and screening measures to allow Britons in Sharm el-Sheikh to get home, but that would take time and there would be no flights returning from the resort on Thursday.

“SOMETHING STOWED” ON BOARD

A Russian aviation official said the investigation was looking into the possibility of an object stowed on board causing the disaster.

“There are two versions now under consideration: something stowed inside (the plane) and a technical fault. But the airplane could not just break apart in the air – there should be some action. A rocket is unlikely as there are no signs of that,” the Russian official said.

Security experts and investigators have said the plane is unlikely to have been struck from the outside and Sinai-based militants are not believed to possess the technology to shoot down a jet from a cruising altitude above 30,000 feet.

Any evidence that a bomb knocked the plane out of the sky would deal a heavy blow to tourism in Egypt, a pillar of the economy that is struggling to recover after years of political turmoil, and would also undermine Sisi’s assertions that Cairo has brought under control Sinai Province’s insurgency.
Sinai Province has killed hundreds of Egyptian soldiers and police since Sisi, as army chief, toppled Islamist President Mohamed Mursi in 2013 after mass protests against his rule. Sisi was elected president last year on promises he would stabilise Egypt and rebuild its shattered economy. Critics say his tough crackdown on Islamists will only create more radicals in Egypt, which has fought militants for decades.

REVENGE FOR RUSSIAN AIRSTRIKES?

Investigators have extracted and validated the contents of the flight data recorder, one of two so-called black boxes recovered from the Russian plane, Egypt’s Civil Aviation Ministry said. The ministry said the second black box, which contains the cockpit voice recorder, was partially damaged and much work was required to extract data from it.

Sinai Province has said it had brought down the airliner “in response to Russian air strikes that killed hundreds of Muslims on Syrian land.” In an audio message posted on a Twitter account used by the group, Islamic State’s Egyptian affiliate insisted on Wednesday it was behind the crash. The claim could not immediately be authenticated.

“We, with God’s grace, are the ones who brought it down, and we are not obliged to disclose the mechanism of its demise,” the speaker said. Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, launched air raids against opposition groups in Syria including Islamic State on Sept. 30. The hardline group has called for war against both Russia and the United States in response to their air strikes in Syria.

Late on Wednesday the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) directed all Irish airlines on Wednesday not to fly to or from the Sinai Peninsula until further notice. The Russian-operated plane was registered in Ireland and the IAA is taking part in the official investigation into the crash.