North Korea Expanding Nuclear Abilities

Posted on September 7, 2015September 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

IAEA: North Korea Apparently Building Nuclear Site

FILE – A satellite image shows the area around the Yongbyon nuclear facility in Yongbyon, North Korea.

North Korea appears to be renovating and building facilities at its Yongbyon nuclear site, a central element of its atomic weapons program, the U.N. nuclear agency’s head said on Monday.

A report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security in April said satellite images showed that activity at the site’s main nuclear reactor may have resumed after a shutdown.

North Korea, which is believed to have carried out nuclear tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013, has not granted IAEA inspectors access to its facilities since 2009, reducing the agency to monitoring its nuclear activities from outside the country.

“We have observed renovation and construction activities at various locations within the site,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told a closed-door meeting of his agency’s Board of Governors in Vienna, according to a text of his speech.

“These appear to be broadly consistent with the DPRK’s statements that it is further developing its nuclear capabilities,” he said, referring to North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Although North and South Korea recently averted a full-scale military confrontation, and agreed to improve ties after a rare exchange of artillery fire over their heavily fortified border, tensions on the Korean Peninsula remain high.

China, North Korea’s closest ally, called on Wednesday for a resumption of talks over Pyongyang’s nuclear program.

The so-called six-party talks — between China, the United States, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas — were last held more than six years ago despite numerous efforts to restart them.

The ISIS report in April said the main reactor at Yongbyon may be operating again at low power or intermittently, and that a centrifuge plant, a facility for the enrichment of uranium, had operated. It also said renovations might be imminent.

Amano did not say where within the Yongbyon site the renovation and construction activities were being carried out.

“We continue to monitor developments at the Yongbyon site, mainly through satellite imagery,” said Amano.

*** There is more:

WASHINGTON (AP) — North Korea is expanding its capacity to mine and mill uranium ore which could supply its nuclear weapons program or fuel nuclear reactors, according to new U.S. research.

The findings shed some light on how Pyongyang gets the raw material to fuel its nuclear ambitions that are raising international alarm.

The analysis is by Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. It is being published Wednesday by the website 38 North, which specializes in North Korea.

Lewis writes that recent commercial satellite imagery, the latest from this May, shows that over the past year, North Korea has been modernizing a key facility next to its main uranium mine at the southern site of Pyongsan, not far from the frontier with rival South Korea.

That suggests North Korea is expecting to process significant amounts of uranium, although what it will do with the product remains unclear. A uranium mill is where uranium ore is turned into yellowcake, a key step before it is fabricated as reactor fuel or for enrichment in centrifuges.

Lewis says one possibility is that North Korea will enrich the uranium to expand its stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The North revealed nearly five years ago it has a uranium enrichment facility at its main nuclear complex at Nyongbyon, and there are signs the facility has since been expanded.

Another possibility, Lewis says, is that the North plans to produce fuel for an experimental light-water reactor under construction at its main nuclear complex at Nyongbyon and possible future reactors based on that model.

North Korea has conducted three nuclear test explosions since 2006 and its weapons stockpile could grow sharply in the coming years, analysts warn.

“The expansion of North Korea’s uranium mine and milling operation is one more piece of evidence pointing to Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, particularly a growing nuclear weapons stockpile that poses a clear threat to the United States, Northeast Asia and the international community,” said Joel Wit, a former State Department official and editor of 38 North.

International nuclear monitors were expelled from North Korea in 2009, so there’s scant independent information on its activities. But in 1992, North Korea declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had two uranium mines and mills, including Pyongsan.

Lewis says Pyongsan appears to have operated intermittently over the past decade. Satellite images show spoil and residue from the mill has been dumped into a nearby pond that is unprotected and surrounded by farms, which would pose a health risk, he says.

Photos also show the mill has undergone significant refurbishment since 2014, with buildings being renovated and a terminus of a conveyor belt demolished and rebuilt.

Post Iran Deal, the Implications for Israel and Middle East

Posted on September 7, 2015September 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

Netanyahu says will not allow Israel to be ‘submerged’ by refugees

Jerusalem (AFP) – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday said he would not allow Israel to be “submerged” by refugees after calls for the Jewish state to take in those fleeing Syria’s war.

Speaking at the weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu also announced the start of construction of a fence along Israel’s border with Jordan, according to his office.

“We will not allow Israel to be submerged by a wave of illegal migrants and terrorist activists,” Netanyahu said.

“Israel is not indifferent to the human tragedy of Syrian and African refugees… but Israel is a small country — very small — without demographic or geographic depth. That is why we must control our borders.”

Opposition leader Isaac Herzog on Saturday said Israel should take in Syrian refugees, recalling the plight of Jews who sought refuge from past conflicts.

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas also called for Israel to allow Palestinians from refugee camps in Syria to travel to the Palestinian territories, whose external borders are controlled by the Jewish state.

There is already hostility in Israel toward asylum-seekers from Africa and a concerted government effort to repatriate them.

Rights groups say thousands of African asylum seekers have been coerced into “voluntary” departures.

Official figures show 45,000 illegal immigrants are in Israel, almost all from Eritrea and Sudan. Most of those not in detention live in poor areas of southern Tel Aviv, where there have been several protests against them.

– ‘To the Golan heights’ –

The start of construction of the 30-kilometre (19-mile) fence announced by Netanyahu involves extension of a security barrier to part of its eastern border with Jordan in a bid to keep out militants and illegal migrants.

Netanyahu said when it was approved in June that the new fence was a continuation of a 240-kilometre barrier built along the Egyptian border which “blocked the entry of illegal migrants into Israel and the various terrorist movements”.

In its first stage, the new fence is being built along Israel’s eastern border between Eilat and where a new airport will be built in the Timna Valley.

“We will continue the fence up to the Golan Heights,” Netanyahu said.

That would take it into the Israeli-occupied West Bank along the Jordan Valley, an area which is already under Israeli military control but is claimed by the Palestinians as part of their state.

Israel has insisted on maintaining troops in the area in any final peace agreement, a stance completely rejected by the Palestinians who say it would be a violation of their sovereignty and merely perpetuate the occupation.

Israel also has a fence that runs along the Syrian frontier through the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Those fences are in addition to a barrier that runs through the West Bank, which Israel began building during the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, which lasted from 2000-2005.

Israel seized 1,200 square kilometres (460 square miles) of the Golan from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War and annexed it 14 years later, in a move never recognised by the international community.

***

When it comes to the implications in the Middle East due to unrest, terrorism and war, the threat matrix festers. Israel knows this well as describes by experts below with regard to a post Iran deal at the hands and consequence of Barack Obama and those other P5+1 members.

The Middle East After the Iran Nuclear Deal

Negotiations between Iran and major powers were narrow in scope, focused on limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from nuclear-related sanctions. Nevertheless, the deal they yielded has broader implications for a region strewn with local conflicts that have been exacerbated by the interventions of regional powers. Five experts weigh in on how Middle Eastern states and nonstate actors are calibrating their policies, and what the new regional landscape might portend for conflicts from the Levant to Yemen.

Lebanese supporters of Hezboollah celebrate in May 2014. (Photo: Ali Hashisho/Reuters)

Farideh Farhi

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) does not announce Iran’s arrival as a regional hegemon, something few among Tehran’s decision-making elite believe Iran has either the ideological or military capacity to achieve. Iranian leaders also know that there is little appetite for such an aggressive posture among a population weary of war with neighbors and hostile relations with world powers. Yet the agreement’s Iranian proponents argue that despite limitations placed on the country’s nuclear program, the deal enhances Iran’s security and consolidates its regional clout.

Major powers learned they must resolve their differences with Iran via diplomatic channels.

Foreign Minister Mohamad Javad Zarif, for example, argues before Iranian audiences that in foreign capitals worldwide in recent years, “Iranophobia” had taken root. He blames the broad-based international sanctions that had been imposed on Iran on a widely held belief that Iran is an aggressive or irrational actor that poses a danger to regional and international security.

But since Iran negotiated on rather than gave up its nuclear program, it demonstrated to major powers that it would not be bullied with military threats and economic sanctions, Zarif and like-minded advocates of the deal argue. The two-year-long nuclear negotiations undermined Iranophobia in many foreign capitals as major powers learned they can—and, indeed, must—resolve their differences with Iran via diplomatic channels rather than by coercion.

There is consensus among the Iranian foreign policy and security establishment that its warnings regarding the destabilization of Syria have proven prescient. They also share the belief that Iran’s domestic politics are the most stable in the region and its foreign policy the most consistent: Iran, they say, pursues systemic stability against antisystemic forces of global terror. The spread of Islamic extremism in the form of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, combined with the election of a government in Iran that ran on a platform of Islamic moderation, has helped advance Iran’s argument that regional issues can only be resolved if it has a seat at the table.

Yet despite a consensus that Iran’s position in the region has been enhanced, the JCPOA is not without its critics in Iran. It allows an inspection regime that violates Iran’s sovereignty and places too much trust in the United States, some argue. Others have slammed the negotiators for concealing the extent of Iran’s concessions and challenged the very notion of compromise with the United States, which, they believe, has not abandoned its ambition of regime change in Tehran, only its coercive tactics. A few even foresee the eventual comeback of coercion, noting that after Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program, the West intervened militarily.

But the JCPOA’s Iranian proponents scoff at the comparison of the Islamic Republic to one-man dictatorships and insist that the resolution of the nuclear standoff strengthens Iran’s position, gradually opening the way for diplomatic progress on logjams like Syria. Only time—and the adjustments of other significant players in the region—will prove whether this optimistic and benign assessment of Iran’s ascent in the region is correct.

Sarah Birke

The negotiations deliberately focused solely on Iran’s nuclear program. Now that a deal has been concluded, many are wondering what it might mean for the Middle East, where Iran is involved in many of the region’s conflicts.

A richer Iran is likely to double down on its support for the Assad regime.

Chief among them is Syria. The war there has already killed 250,000 people and displaced nine million. Along with Russia, Iran is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s main backer; the United States, Europe, and Gulf states support his opponents. A Syrian peace deal wouldn’t be viable without Iran’s participation. Hence the flurry of diplomatic activity in the past weeks, as countries have tested the waters after the Iran deal.

Iran is pragmatic. Iranian officials have in the past indicated they aren’t wedded to Assad.

Yet while the nuclear deal might, in theory, lead to more open discussions among the many powers with a stake in Syria, in practice Iran shows no sign of ending its support for the regime. Assad himself certainly views it that way: he called the agreement a “victory” for Iran—and, by unspoken extension, for himself.

Even under sanctions and with domestic troubles, Iran has dedicated billions of dollars to the regime’s survival, funding and training pro-regime militias, including the paramilitary National Defense Force and Shia fighters. As sanctions are lifted and Iran has more money, it is likely to spend more to keep the regime afloat.

Although Iran and its adversaries agree that the self-proclaimed Islamic State is a problem, they are divided over what to do about it. Iran sees the group’s expansion as reinforcing its view that the Syrian regime must stay, backing Assad’s claim to be the only party capable of defeating “terrorism” in Syria. Opponents argue that Assad is a cause of Islamic State—by letting extremists out of prison and killing Muslims—and until he goes, it won’t abate.

Any agreement would require assuring Iran that its interests in Syria will remain intact. Iran says it wants stability and the end of Islamic State, but its main interests lie elsewhere: It likes to assert its power, especially vis-a-vis the United States and its allies. And more important to Iran is that it has a route to send weapons to Lebanon, where Hezbollah acts as a strategic deterrent to Israel, a far greater military power than Iran. The United States, Europe, and Gulf powers are not going to agree to that.

Yet Iran’s hegemony in Syria is not assured. Its influence there is more tenuous than it is in Iraq, where Iran backs the government and some militias. Without the large Shia constituency it has in Iraq, Iran’s influence on Syria relies far more on money and pragmatic alliances than natural affinity. A richer Iran is more likely to double down on its support for the regime than promote a reasonable negotiated settlement.

Matthew Levitt

Iran is Hezbollah’s primary benefactor, giving the Lebanese political party and militant group some $200 million a year in addition to weapons, training, intelligence, and logistical assistance. Over the past eighteen months, however, Iran has cut back its financial support to Hezbollah—a collateral benefit of the unprecedented international sanctions regime targeting Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the fall in oil prices.

A newly enriched Hezbollah would be more aggressive at home and abroad.

The cutback has mostly curtailed Hezbollah’s political, social, and military activities inside Lebanon. Its social-service institutions have cut costs, employees have received paychecks late or been laid off, and funding for civilian organizations, such as the group’s satellite television station, al-Manar, has been reduced. By contrast, Hezbollah’s Syria command, which has been a priority for Tehran given its commitment to defending Bashar al-Assad’s regime, has shown no sign of financial hardship.

If nuclear-related sanctions are lifted in whole or in part, an influx of Iranian money will enable Hezbollah to push back against Lebanese political and social movements that are uncomfortable with its intervention in Syria. Lebanon’s political crises, from its inability to select a president to its failure to collect garbage, is a result of this deep sectarian division. An influx of radicalized Sunnis from Syria could bring further instability to Lebanon.

Increased Iranian spending will also benefit Hezbollah’s regional and international operations. The group is no longer limited to jockeying for political power in Lebanon and fighting Israel. With more money, it could step up its aid to Shia militias in Iraq and Yemen in cooperation with Iran, sending small numbers of skilled trainers to bolster local forces and, in some cases, fight alongside them. In Iraq, Hezbollah is training and fighting with Shia militias. Though they are fighting on behalf of the government, their tactics exacerbate sectarian tensions. Its footprint in Yemen is small, but it could expand with additional resources. Hezbollah is already trying to find long-term support for these operations. In Iraq, for example, it is investing in commercial front organizations.

Finally, increased funding could help Hezbollah reconstitute its capabilities beyond the Middle East. The group has expanded its terrorist operations in countries as disparate as Cyprus, Peru, and Thailand.

Hezbollah is busier than ever, especially in Syria, where it is engaged in expensive militant operations and support activities. Meanwhile, the group has expanded its regional activities further afield, straining its coffers even as it has had to cut back its activities in Lebanon. A newly enriched Hezbollah would be more aggressive at home and abroad, challenging less-militant parties across the Lebanese political spectrum and boosting its destabilizing activities outside of Lebanon.

Hussein Ibish

Despite the heterogeneity of interests and perspectives among the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), they share a broad consensus on the nuclear deal agreed to by major powers and Iran. This common position was expressed in the joint statement issued by GCC foreign ministers and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry after their August 3 summit in Qatar.

Riyadh has undertaken a major initiative to unite Sunni states in an anti-Iran alliance.

The statement endorses the nuclear agreement, partly because Gulf states hope that the accord could eventually ease regional tensions. Their endorsement is also a recognition that the deal will go forward no matter what they say, and that they see no benefit in joining Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the lone international naysayers. Instead, the Gulf states are seeking to maximize the benefits they will accrue by consenting to the arrangement, to which they are not a party even though it will affect their security (whether for good or ill remains to be seen).

The GCC response also insists that Iran cease employing subversive means to extend its influence in the Arab world. The nuclear deal comes as tensions between Iran and major Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have reached a historic high.

A newly hawkish Saudi Arabia has demonstrated it is willing to use military force to try to roll back Iran’s influence in the Gulf. The Saudi-led Arab intervention in Yemen has brought GCC forces into direct conflict with the Iran-backed Houthi militia. Riyadh has also undertaken a major initiative to unite Sunni states in an anti-Iran alliance. To this end, Saudi Arabia has reached out to its former antagonists, such as the regional Muslim Brotherhood movement, including Hamas; forged an alliance with Sudan; and strengthened its relations with Turkey.

The Gulf states are hoping that a successful nuclear agreement will strengthen Iranian moderates and eventually make Iran a more responsible regional actor. But they are not counting on that, nor are they relying as much on U.S. leadership as they have in the past.

Gulf countries are moving to strengthen military cooperation with the United States. They are buying new weapons and have received promises of security coordination but are pressing for even stronger commitments. But they are also seeking closer ties to other powers, such as China, France, and Russia, and are developing an independent approach to secure their vital interests.

These interests include preventing Iran from further destabilizing the Arab world by promoting sectarian conflicts and backing armed Shiite groups, including those within Gulf Arab states, as well as ensuring that Iran does not expand its influence in the region at the expense of Arab interests.

If these new tensions come to define the Gulf relationship with Iran and no significant diplomatic steps are taken to create other means of resolving regional crises, the nuclear deal might actually contribute to a more unstable and violent Middle East.

Chuck Freilich

The nuclear agreement is a done deal. Israel must now decide how best to position itself for this new reality in which Iran’s nuclear aspirations have hopefully been postponed, though not eliminated; its regional and international stature has been strengthened by the resolution of the nuclear issue; and its financial ability to carry out its regional ambitions has been increased.

Israel may not be able to continue its policy of noninvolvement in Syria for long.

Many Israeli security experts believe that Israel’s first priority should be to restore strategic cooperation and intimacy with the United States. An important dimension of that would be for Israel to acquiesce to the agreement and use its intelligence capabilities to help ensure that the nuclear inspections regime is implemented.

Assuming the agreement holds, Israel’s biggest strategic concerns will be Iran’s regional ambitions, the rise of the Islamic State and other radical Islamists on its Syrian border and in nearby Iraq, and threats to the stability of Egypt and Jordan. The civil war in Syria has already resulted in attacks on Israel and holds the greatest potential for escalation.

Emboldened by its recent diplomatic success, Iran is likely to pursue its regional objectives with greater intensity and fewer constraints.

Israel may not be able to continue its policy of noninvolvement in Syria for long. The domination of a Syrian rump state by Iran and its Lebanese client, Hezbollah, which has a significant presence along the Golan Heights, would extend the already explosive confrontation with them from Lebanon to Syria and would present an unacceptable danger for Israel; indeed, it has already begun to do so. Hezbollah appears too stretched in Syria to want a confrontation with Israel soon, but this may change.

A takeover of Syria by the self-proclaimed Islamic State or Syrian rebel groups would also prove dangerous. Heinous as it is, Bashar al-Assad’s regime still has many assets to lose in a confrontation with Israel and can thus be deterred. It will take time for non-state actors to develop similar assets.

The borders with Gaza and Egypt remain combustible. After three major conflicts in recent years, Gazans do not appear to want renewed hostilities. Renewed rocket fire is nevertheless likely and will increase Israeli public pressure for Israeli forces “to finish the work” left undone in 2014. Escalation will be especially likely if Iran strengthens its cooperation with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The growing strength of Islamist extremists in the Sinai makes further border incidents with Egypt more likely as well.

Given their fundamental hostility toward Israel, the current confluence of interests with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states is unlikely to yield significant practical cooperation, media speculation notwithstanding. Turkey will not upgrade relations as long as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in power and seeks closer ties with Iran.

The prospects of an agreement with the Palestinians, already bleak, will diminish in a situation of Iranian regional ascendency. Any attempt to restart talks is destined to fail. It would squander U.S. diplomatic capital, which will be needed when more propitious circumstances arise.

Peanut Island and JFK, a Hidden Treasure Bunker

Posted on September 7, 2015September 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

A little piece of history, but few tourists and historians know during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Secret Kennedy Bunker on Peanut Island: Hidden treasure, historic site

~Hidden on an island best known for boats and bikinis is a fascinating relic of another era in South Florida — the Kennedy Bunker, the underground fallout shelter built in December 1961 as a safe haven for President John F. Kennedy, whose family’s Palm Beach compound is minutes away across the water.

The bunker was constructed quickly and secretly during the run up to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hidden in the woods and underground, it fell into disrepair until restored by the museum in 1999.

The bunker is located on Peanut Island, a Palm Beach County park accessible only by boat, that is usually surrounded by partiers on boats.

The bunker is operated by the Palm Beach Maritime Museum, which also runs the adjacent Historic Former Coast Guard Station museum.

The bunker is the real deal. The museums site says:

“With the exception of a presidential seal, added as a modern enhancement, the declassified, decommissioned bunker is very close to the original. The structure is covered with earth and many layers of concrete and rebar. Entry is via a blast-hardened tunnel, with a 90 degree angle to minimize shock effects from a nuclear explosion. Entry is through a secure decontamination area, which was, however, and interestingly, made of plywood.”

While a few folks around Palm Beach County know about the Kennedy Bunker and Peanut Island, it still ranks as one of Florida’s hidden treasures. It’s likely to stay that way, however: Since it is located on an island, visiting it will always require taking a water taxi, private boat or a kayak — which is part of why we love it in the first place.

The bunker itself is quite small. Shelves are stocked with containers of drinking water, Army K-rations and gas masks. There’s a rocking chair — the seat of choice for a president with a bad back, and a ham radio reminds us of life before cell phones.

It’s a spooky space. You know that if this bunker were ever actually used, it would be something close to the end of the world.

More practical matters, however, are also discussed. There is no bathroom. How would that work?

The answer: You used a bucket, filled it and sealed it.

Before touring the bunker, visitors are taken through the historic Coast Guard Station. The tour is short and modest, but you see some interesting items.

An interesting piece in the New York Times tells how JFK had a similar shelter built on another vacation destination, Nantucket Island. That shelter has never been open to the public.

The End is Near for the EU and the Schengen Agreement?

Posted on September 7, 2015September 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

It was an experiment, a treaty in 1985 and not implemented until 1995 where borders were eliminated in Europe. Stop and think about that a minute or two.

The Schengen Agreement covers two different agreements that were ratified in 1985 and 1990 respectively. Between them, they abolished border controls and made transit through Europe a lot easier. The two individual agreements said the following:

1985 – The Schengen Agreement of 1985 was made between the Benelux Economic Union, the French Republic and the Federal Republic Of Germany. All of those governments agreed to abolish border check on the borders that they shared. Instead of stop and search tactics, every vehicle that had a green visa disc in the windscreen could simply drive on through. There were still to be guards on the borders to visually check the vehicles as they crossed into another country. This is commonly known as Schengen I.
1990 – The 1990 Schengen Agreement, which is also known as Schengen II, went one step further. It made provisions for the complete elimination of border checks over a period of time.
Both Schengen Agreements were a major breakthrough for the traffic in Europe. Queues would often be a mile long waiting for border patrols to wave them through, but the agreements enabled this to be brought to an end. Now people can cross into neighbouring countries without having to show any form of ID. Of course, airlines still require you to show it for security purposes, but border controls are a lot easier to navigate and do not even exist in some cases.

Sixteen European countries have now adopted the Schengen Agreement. They are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands. This is because the original Schengen Agreements were actually referred to in the framework of the European Union and included in the law.

To create a common free travel condition, a new visa was issued. The Schengen Agreement was based on the Treaty of Rome whereby common policing would be used and well as judicial policy, economic policy (sharing) and more a common used of identity documents.

Most recently, the burden of sustaining Europe has fallen on Germany and it was not but a few months ago that Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom where that initiative was defeated. Then the financial spiral of Greece, threatened to be the first country to possibly be forced out of the union. Then in recent months, there is a movement in Great Britain to reconsider the European Union membership.

Based on the immediate refugee crisis in the Middle East affecting all corners of Western and Eastern Europe, could it be that each country is having internal discussions about amending or terminating this agreement? If not, they should. Shared sacrifice and more forced policy for unique countries and cultures will no longer be a viable condition in coming years.

Simply noted is that Brits want out.

When this condition is brought home for a domestic debate, look no further than NAFTA and the policy of Barack Obama of the expanded Visa Waiver Program, the backdoor Dreamer White House project and worse the lifting of quotas on foreigners into the United States, known as the Johnson Reed Act, which was essentially an emergency piece of legislation and has been amended, updated and expanded to include a wide variety of foreign/international operations, trade and conditions.

The lesson for this article is watch Europe closely. There are citizens there not happy with the Schengen Agreement, remaining in the union and it could soon have new consequences. If it has never for the most part worked in Europe, it wont work here, and further, America has a U.S. Constitution and each respective state does as well.

Fair warning America.

The Other Muslim Massacre Ignored in History

Posted on September 7, 2015September 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

For a short summary background, click here.

‘In 1971, Muslims murdered 2.4 million Hindus and raped 200,000 Hindu women’

Will the Muslim violence against the Indian people, and the contamination of barbaric Islamic ideals blended into their culture, ever end? The Israeli’s and Hindus are the largest victims of perpetural Islamic invasions and violence lasting for more than 1,000 years. Muhammad Ali Jinna, a member of the Indian National Congress and later of the All-India Muslim League (a Khilafat movement that also germinated the Palestine conflict), demanded a two-state partition, creating the Lahore Resolution, which formed the separate creation of Pakistan.

This partition of people created a domin effect of other tensions and problems spreading from Khalistan to Bangladesh, to Kashmir, to Balochistan and to continued terrorism and tension existing even today. The British tried to discourage Muhammad Ali Jinna against rallying for the partition and warned against it many times, which ended in riots, mass exodus, clashes and deaths of millions. The article covers a poorly exposed incident of Muslim massacres of Hindus that we never hear about. It’s a pity the article forms a common Hindu anti-Western mindset, and fails to acknowledge any attention to the simple fact that Britain saved India from Muslim rule. India would bend to Mecca today had it not been for the clever rulers of South India who formed an alliance with Britain for exclusive trade agreements which developed into British rule and the expulsion of Muslim rule and Sharia law. You never hear Indian people admit to this fact. Instead they are focused purely on anti-Western rhetorics. It’s not Britain who destroyed India. It’s Islam that looted, massacred and destroyed Indian culture from within. Muslim terrorism, attacks, tensions continue in India to this day.

Understanding Islamic violence; how to defend our freedoms

Interview by People of Shambhala.

In the wake of renewed violence against Hindus in Pakistan, and with more than 100 Hindu families seeking asylum in India, Director of the Canadian Hindu Advocacy group spoke to People of Shambhala. Mr. Banerjee talks about the background to the conflict, and why Pakistan was created in 1947. Why the West should include Hinduism, not just the “Judeo-Christian” tradition. And he also discusses Islam and violence against Hindus and the West, and how we can defend our values and freedoms.

PoS: At the moment about 100 Hindu families are seeking asylum in India, from Pakistan, and are claiming discrimination and violence. There were four doctors murdered on the first day of Eid, and, I think, a Sikh was stabbed as well. Can you tell us a little about that situation?

RB: Sure. The situation is very natural. Most people don’t understand what Pakistan is. Pakistan is a country that was formed for the Muslims. India is a multi-ethnic country for everybody. So Pakistan was formed with the very idea that the only people that should be in Pakistan are Muslims. There is nothing strange about what’s going on in Pakistan today. It’s being going on for a long time.

At independence Pakistan’s population was about ten percent Hindu and Sikh. Now it’s less than one percent. So the question is where did that nine percent go? Well, they were either ethnically cleansed, driven away, or slaughtered in large numbers in the 1971 war between India and Pakistan. In East Pakistan an estimated 2.4 million Hindus were slaughtered in just one year, and hundreds of thousands of Hindu women were raped.

There is nothing surprising about any of this because Islam was introduced into the Asian subcontinent with the objective of occupying and exterminating the Hindus. According to the historian William Durant, and other historians, an estimated 80 million Hindus were killed, were slaughtered, and thousands and thousands of Hindu temples were smashed, and mosques were built on top of them. The Muslims of India tried very hard over the period of their 700 years [of occupation] to wipe out the Hindus. But there was resistance from some of the Hindu kingdoms. They never had full control over India so they were unable to achieve that goal. But that’s the eternal goal. According to Islam, Hinduism is the lowest form of life on the planet. Because Hindus, according to them, they’re polytheistic, they believe in multiple gods. They believe we worship idols, and idol worship is a sin in Islam.

PoS: One thing that has struck me is just the extent of the attacks on Hindus, Buddhists, Yezidis, Zoroastrians, Kalash. Yet we don’t hear anything about this. You mentioned the war of 71; 2.4 million dead, 200,000 Hindu women raped, but we don’t hear anything about that in the West.

RB: No you don’t, because there’s a systematic effort by Muslims and petrodollars to cover it up. The reason you don’t hear about it is because they make tremendous effort to silence it.

PoS: In all fairness, some Middle Eastern newspapers that probably cater mostly to Muslims have covered some of it, but you don’t seem to find it in the West, which is even more incredible. Why do you think Western journalists won’t cover something like that? The West always portrays itself as caring about minorities and being the people that always stand up to stop genocide, and that are always campaigning against violence against minorities. But nothing.

RB: This may offend you a little bit.

PoS: It won’t [laughs].

RB: It probably will [laughs]. But, it’s because the West have been hypocrites.

PoS: Yeah.

RB: If you look at Britain, for example, when they went to India they did not stop genocide or massacres, they expedited them. They actually supported the Muslims against the Hindus, helped them to perpetrate massacres. In terms of the establishment of the state of Pakistan, if you read people like William Dalrymple, a British historian, it becomes quite clear that the British encouraged the creation of Pakistan in order to divide the [anti-colonial] independence movement. [*Dalrymple’s theories are inaccurate and merely theories. The Britain discouraged against the partition of India, but the decision was created by Indian-Muslim voters themselves spearheaded by Muhammad Ali Jinna]

PoS: Do you think there is still a kind of colonial residue in the atmosphere. Do you think there is some kind of patronizing attitude in the media? Is that why we don’t see atrocities reported?

I’ve heard this question before. That it’s a form of racism that they don’t condemn Muslims for their human rights violations is because they are non-Western and [therefore] they are expected to be barbaric. There might be some of that, but these days it’s rather more a culture of fear. I mean, if you publish a cartoon of Mohammed, even if you’re in the West, you get threatened, and you possibly get killed, and you have riots going on. So now it’s more of a culture of fear.

PoS: On that note, Subramanian Swamy, the Hindu professor at Harvard, was fired because he wrote an article on how to wipe out Islamic terror [in India]. I read it. I didn’t find it shocking… I suppose [at the most controversial point] he’s saying that non-Hindus would have to appreciate their Hindu roots or they wouldn’t be allowed to vote. What was your take on his article and on his being fired?

RB: The article was a hundred percent correct. He did not say – as has been claimed – that all non-Hindus should be forced to convert to Hinduism or anything like that. He didn’t even say that non-Hindus should be oppressed or treated badly within India. He just said they should have a respect for Hinduism, and that they should acknowledge the proper history, especially the history of the Muslims in India. There was no such thing as Islam in India before about 1,000 AD. Muslims invaded and forcibly converted millions of Hindus to Islam. That’s just a historical fact. And that they should acknowledge that historical fact.

PoS: Why is it when it comes to Islam, we don’t stick for minorities? We don’t stick up for women’s rights? We don’t stick up for gay rights? All the things that we would stand up for at any other time.

RB: It’s a combination of different things. Political correctness is part of it, but it’s not the whole explanation. It’s more a simple combination of fear and bribery. In many cases it’s just the money and influence pouring in from the Middle East demanding that no negative aspects of Islam be spoken about. It’s the carrot and the stick, the carrot being the money being the money flowing in from petrodollars, and the stick being [the fear of] rioting and beheading over a cartoon or any slight to Islam.

PoS: In 2008, there was the Mumbai attacks. A couple of things about that were striking. One thing was the way the Western media covered it. If memory serves me correctly – and I think it does – it was implied that the attacks in Mumbai were against essentially Western targets, such as the Taj Mahal Hotel. Do you think they were going after Western targets or do you think there was another incentive?

RB: Well, most of the people that were killed were Hindus. So, I wouldn’t call them Western targets… again it’s the stupidity of the West, reporting it in this way… It’s not necessarily the case that they [the terrorists] were trying to kill as many White people, or White tourists, as possible. They just wanted to attack the most visible, or the wealthiest, or the most high profile, targets. Those aren’t Western targets. The only target that they went out of their way to attack that was not related to Hinduism was the synagogue, the Jewish target.

PoS: You probably follow what is going on in Europe, where we hear a lot of calls for sharia. And some people are trying to defend liberal democracy, but they don’t always seem to know what they’re defending. You believe that Hindu values and the values of liberal democracy and modernity are the same. Can you tell me what those would be?

RB: The one mistake that Westerners all make – including conservatives – is that they define Western values and the values of liberal democracy strictly as Judeo-Christian. And I don’t think that’s the case. I believe Hindu values have to be included in that as well because India is the world’s largest democracy and it’s 80 percent Hindu, so how can it just be Judeo-Christian. Most people will tell you that it [democracy] comes from the British, which is obnoxious and insulting and racist. I would think that you should want to give credit to the people of that country rather than to an invasive force a hundred years ago.

The values of democracy are more in tune with Hinduism than with many, many, many other faith traditions, because if you look at Hinduism there was an openness – the ability of people within Hinduism to have different gods, multiple deities, and to worship as they please… The ability to allow this freedom, to worship as one pleased without being excommunicated or called a heretic, that’s one of the factors that makes Hinduism a more democratic religion than many others.

When people say that the West is a result of Judeo-Christian civilization, it’s also a combination of that and Socrates, Aristotle, and others, and they were in pre-Christian times, and they were not Jewish either. They were part of a faith that was somewhat similar to Hinduism in the sense that it had multiple gods. I think, on the one hand, it’s difficult because, it [the conception of democracy and the West] has to be more inclusive; it can’t be just Judeo-Christian. You’ve got to embrace some of those other traditions as well. On the other hand let’s not start saying Islam had something to do with it as well; [because] no it didn’t.

PoS: Are there historical links between the ancient Greeks and Hinduism?

RB: I’m not a historian, so I’m not a hundred percent certain, but some of the words and names… Sanskrit is the original Indo-European language… so there are some similarities between ancient Greek and Sanskrit.

PoS: Yes, that’s from Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European is the root of many European languages and Indian as well. And some of the ancient Greeks were influenced by Buddhism(1) as well, so there must be some links [to Hinduism].(2)

RB: Yeah, yeah, I understand there were. There must be some linkages.

PoS: That would be pretty interesting [to research into]. Sort of on that note, today we have a lot of Christian groups that embrace interfaith dialogue with Islam, and they have imams up on stage, and it’s all very lovey-dovey. Yet they react hysterically to New Age spirituality – which is a very pacifistic form of spirituality – but they are extraordinary hysterical about that and think it’s all Satan. It strikes me, whether you like it or not, New Ageism is a big part of Western culture and has been for some time. They’re obviously frightened by it, and think it’s going to destroy civilization. But, I don’t know if you know this, but Hindu nationalism and Buddhist nationalism [and anti-colonialism] were partly revived – or were encouraged to be revived – through a couple of Western proto-New Age people of the Theosophical Society.(3)

RB: Yes, I heard about that… the Theosophical Society in Calcutta.

PoS: Related to that, do you think we should be forming alliances between Hindus, and people who practice Yoga, and spiritual people, and then Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians?

RB: Yes, I think Hinduism, and Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism, are a better fit for Western democracy and liberalism than Islam. I think maybe why some Christians feel kinship with Islam is that – for example, with the Inquisition – Christianity has behaved more like Islam than the peaceful, tolerant, Hindus and the Buddhists…[*this is a lack of historic accuracy. Christian history is filled with battles against Islamic invasions and barbarity]. I think you need a combination of tolerance and as strength. You shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant.

PoS: No.

RB: Maybe if you could meld together the toughness of Christianity with some of the tolerance of Hinduism and Buddhism, and form an alliance, you may be able to get the elusive Holy Grail that everyone seems to be looking for, which is how to be strong enough to deter [political] Islam, while not sacrificing our values and principles of liberalism and human rights and democracy.

_________________

Notes:

(1) For those interested in the fusion of ancient Greek and Buddhist culture see:

The Buddhist Channel: Gandhara artist’s lasting contribution to Greco-Buddhist art;

Wikipedia: Greco-Buddhism;

UNESCO: images of Greco-Buddhist art;

(2) For those interested in the historical links between ancient Greece and India, see Fordham University: Greek Reports of India & Aryavarta;

Author Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy .

Hindu Wisdom: India and Greece;

Wikipedia: Indo-Greeks;

(3) For more information of the Theosophical Society and its relationship to Hindu and Buddhist anti-colonialism see:

Imperial encounters: religion and modernity in India and Britain by Peter van der Veer [Google Books].