Bharat Rakshak

Military intervention in the Muslim world seems to bring the United States nothing but grief. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya: None looks much like a success story now.

Yet the Obama administration is edging reluctantly into a civil war in Syria, aiding rebels who are fighting to overthrow the brutal regime of Bashar Assad. And it should: The longer this war goes on, the worse it will be for the U.S. and the Syrians. Already, more than 70,000 Syrians have died; perhaps 4 million have lost their homes. The arguments against intervention are eroding fast.

Why? Because all the alternatives are worse.

At the moment, Syria's opposition is a mess. Last week, the U.S.-backed president of the rebels' governing council, the Syrian National Coalition, suddenly resigned, complaining that he was being undercut by the more radical Muslim Brotherhood. One side in that squabble (the moderate, Moaz Khatib) was backed by Saudi Arabia, the other (the Muslim Brotherhood) by the rival Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar. Both countries have won influence among the rebels by providing money and weapons. The United States, caught in the middle, has been trying to broker a reconciliation, but without the helpful currency of arms supplies.

U.S. restraint hasn't succeeded in stopping the war; it's merely made it more difficult to organize the opposition. Syria's neighbors — rival Arab states, plus Turkey — have funneled aid to their favorite rebel factions; that's been a recipe for division, not success.

Meanwhile, on the ground, the radical Islamist Al Nusra Front, an offshoot of Al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, has won a reputation as the most effective fighting force on the rebel side, a record that's helping it attract recruits. So the stakes for the United States in this conflict are high. Syria is surrounded by countries that are important to the U.S.: Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. A long sectarian civil war in Syria could spill over into any of them

A war that ends with restoration of the Assad regime would be a triumph for Iran and a disaster for the United States. A war that ends with a victory for Al Nusra would be even worse.

That's why the Obama administration is still trying to prod the regime and the rebels toward a negotiated truce that would remove Assad from power. But neither side appears ready to negotiate.

The administration has taken sides rhetorically, declaring that Assad must go and recognizing the rebels as legitimate players in any new government. It has pledged almost $385 million in humanitarian aid. It has provided communications equipment and training for opposition leaders. And according to recent reports, U.S. intelligence agencies have provided carefully chosen rebel units with military intelligence and training, and helped arrange weapons shipments from suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

One problem with that kind of quiet assistance: Most Syrians don't know about it. Even the most public part of the program, humanitarian aid, doesn't carry "Made in USA" labels. "Everybody [in Syria] asks … 'Why aren't they helping us?'" Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch told a House committee last week. "And that anger was directed particularly at the United States."

The arguments against doing more in Syria are familiar. We don't want to close off the possibility of negotiations. Military aid might prolong the war. We can't be sure that aid won't fall into the wrong hands. It might be a slippery slope toward putting boots on the ground. And we're tired, so tired, of wars in the Muslim world.

But at this point, military aid to the rebels is more likely to push the government toward negotiations, not foreclose that possibility. Military aid could shorten the war. Yes, weapons could fall into the wrong hands, but that's an argument against providing surface-to-air missiles, not rifles and ammunition.

Most important, aid doesn't need to turn into a slippery slope. In the 2011 intervention in Libya, Obama sent U.S. Air Force jets and Navy ships to war, but drew a line against putting boots on the ground, and that line held.

It's true that Libya didn't come out well. (What were you expecting, Switzerland?) Today's complaints about Libya forget the alternative at the time: air and tank attacks by Moammar Kadafi against his own cities, just as Assad is doing in Syria.

Obama has inched toward more direct intervention. Administration officials have considered options ranging from arms shipments to a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone and attacks on Syria's air force. But action has been agonizingly slow. It looks as if the president wants to make it clear that, whatever he does, it wasn't his first preference.

Last week, at a news conference during his visit to the Middle East, he complained about the no-win side of his job. If the United States "goes in militarily, then it's criticized for going in militarily," he said, "and if it doesn't go in militarily, then people say, 'Why aren't you doing something militarily?'"

The president's peevishness is understandable; he doesn't need another headache, let alone another war. But indecision is not leadership. It's not even leading from behind. We need to be doing more.

It is a seat that has been occupied by Bashar al-Assad for more than a decade, but the Syrian President’s chair at the Arab League was handed to those seeking to oust him, in a historic moment for the opposition.

NATO Secretary General‎ Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the 28-member military alliance was not going to help Syrian opposition defend rebel-controlled northern parts of Syria with Patriot surface-to-air missiles that are now based in Turkey.

Speaking on the heels of a meeting with Bulgaria's PM Marin Raykov, Rasmussen stressed that “the Patriot missiles were deployed in Turkey for only defensive purposes. We have no intention to attack anyone and we had declared that we were in Turkey to protect the Turkish people and Turkish territory.”

A total of six Patriot batteries have been pulled to Turkey’s southern border with Syria to protect it from missile attacks.

The statement came after Syrian Coalition’s chief Moaz al-Khatyb called on the US and NATO to help the opposition keep the upper hand in northern Syria.

Carl wrote:Morsi eyeing joining BRICS

Baikul wrote:

Carl wrote:Morsi eyeing joining BRICS

Someone tell him it's BRICS, and not the Pakistani club PRICKS.

Russia has criticised the Arab League's decision to allow Syria's main opposition coalition to take the country's official seat at its summit.

In a statement, Moscow described the move as "yet another anti-Syrian" step and illegal under international law.

Russia's statement followed similar disapproval from Iran, which said it was "dangerous behaviour".

Meanwhile, President Bashar al-Assad called on the emerging "Brics" nations to seek an end to the Syrian conflict.

...

RajeshA wrote:

Baikul wrote: Someone tell him it's BRICS, and not the Pakistani club PRICKS.

May be they too can set up a club - Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Iran and Syria!

In the late 1340s, Bernardo Daddi of Florence painted The Virgin and Child with a Donor.

The anonymous donor stands, tiny and in prayer, at the very bottom of the frame, while a monumental virgin – black-cowled, a bright red embroided dress over a very flat chest – holds a slightly sinister-eyed Christ who is, in turn, holding an open-beaked goldfinch. The finch, like many Renaissance birds, has its own symbolism; it eats thorns and is thus a precursor of the thorn crown which Christ will wear three decades later.

But what struck me was the pink cloth that the baby Christ is wearing. For on its fringe is what appears to be Arabic script. Close inspection – or as close as I could get at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Ottawa, where “Revealing the Early Renaissance: Stories and Secrets in Florentine Art” is showing – suggest that the letters only appear to be Arabic. There might be a “-lah” or even a “k” (kaf), but it makes no sense. In his exhibition notes, Victor Schmidt calls it a “pseudo-Arabic inscription”.

A bit odd, this. The Florentines were familiar with the Islamic world. Dante Alighieri placed the Prophet Mohamed in the eighth circle of hell in his Divine Comedies; and while the Crusades had effectively ended a century and a half earlier, the Florentines kept up a brisk trade with the silk manufacturers of Syria. Muslim-Christian society was still flourishing in Andalusia. Yet Bernardo Daddi couldn’t be bothered to use a line of real Arabic.

Florence was at this time the most powerful economic centre in Europe and its bankers and merchants could afford to assuage their fear of hellfire by employing the great painters of their time to honour God. But while they knew that Jesus died above a city called Jerusalem, their illustrations of the Holy Land were peculiarly European.

True, there is blood aplenty in these works. It spurts from the neck of John the Baptist, spools on to a skull from Christ’s spear wound, pours from the severed breasts of poor Saint Agatha. But while the Middle East was then – as now – a place of suffering, so was early Renaissance Europe. Burning at the stake, pressing to death, beheading, were all part of Middle Ages Europe.

And the helmeted “Roman” soldiers who accompany Christ to his crucifixion in Pacino di Bonaguida’s Scenes From The Life Of Christ are clearly wearing the clothes of an Italian Renaissance army.

Donkeys and cows slumber at cribs, dogs sleep beside their masters, but there are no camels and, suspiciously, no deserts. There is an elephant observing Jesus in Pacino’s The Creation of the World, along with some lively deer, while the skies, far from exuding heat, are usually a deep cerulean blue. The gold reflects Christ’s glory – not the sun – and the trees in these works, mostly neat Italian pines, are obviously European, with only some rather weird cactus-type plants appearing at the borders. Buildings, such as they exist, are Italianate churches and city walls.

In other words, this is a Europeanised Christ, just as Brueghel and the Dutch Old Masters would later place Jesus amid the frosts and low-roofed barns of the Low Countries. The rocks in Florentine painting might be in the Judean desert – in Pacino’s The Resurrection, for example – but they could also be in the Apennines. Was it the Renaissance that localised Jesus into a European geography?

After all, the earlier Crusaders knew real cartography all too well. Their castles, including the now civil war-wounded Krak des Chevaliers in present-day Syria, had “Europeanised” the architecture of the Middle East. These castles, I have decided after much prowling over their battlements – a singularly unacademic view, I know – were Gothic cathedrals with fortress walls instead of flying buttresses.

By the Renaissance, however, there was a place called “Christendom” which was definitely not in the Middle East. That’s what most of western and central Europe was then called – it started somewhere north-west of what is now Bosnia, along the Ottoman frontier.

Christ, in other words, belonged to “us”. And did those feet in ancient time walk upon England’s mountains green? No, of course not. But we had, by the 18th and 19th centuries, so appropriated Christianity that Jesus might as well have been born in England. Or America.

And so, of course, we arrive at the Bible Belt and such born-again Christians as George W. Bush who still, apparently, does not realise that his God-given right to invade Iraq led directly to the destruction of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East.

Thus, Bush was able to call for a crusade in the Muslim world and to talk about Good and Evil without realising that for him, as for the painters of Florence, Jesus came from the West rather than the Middle East. That’s why Bush advanced the cause, not of the US Constitution but of the Bible. But where did all this start? Dare we blame Giotto?

ramana wrote:Jhujar, Have you seen a side by side of Islamic Cresent and the Star and its mirror image?

MOSCOW, April 5 (RIA Novosti) – Russia is not looking to oust Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and wants the conflicting parties to negotiate and stop the “massacre,” putting an end to the “catastrophe” in Syria, President Vladimir Putin said on Friday.

“We do not think that Assad should leave today, as our partners suggest. In this case, tomorrow we will have to decide what to do and where to go,” Putin told German broadcaster ARD in an interview at his Novo-Ogarevo residence near Moscow.

He cited Libya as an example, which, according to him, “has already split into three parts.”

“We don't want a situation that is just as difficult as in Iraq. We do not want to have a situation of the same difficulty as in Yemen, and so on,” he said.

Rebels in Libya, some of them members of Islamist groups, ousted and killed long-standing dictator Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011, after a months-long uprising in which they received assistance from NATO forces.

“We believe it is necessary to sit everyone down at the negotiating table, so that all warring parties could reach an agreement on how their interests will be protected and in what way they will participate in the future governance of the country,” he said.

Putin also said that French President Francois Hollande, who visited Moscow last month, has interesting ideas on how to solve the ongoing conflict in Syria, and Russia is ready to support them.

“I think he has some interesting ideas that can be implemented, but it requires some diplomatic work. We are ready to support these ideas. We need to try and put them into practice,” Putin said.

On her way out the door in January, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton clung to the fiction that passes for bipartisan Beltway wisdom. She told a Senate panel that we must distinguish between jihadists and “non-jihadists.” The latter are our hope. Therefore, she maintained, we must be “effective in partnering with the non-jihadists,” even if they fly al-Qaeda’s “black flag.”

Clinton’s words were chosen carefully. The term “non-jihadist” connotes nonviolence. She was trying to distance the administration’s Muslim Brotherhood friends from the terrorists — consistent with the lunatic Beltway consensus that the Brotherhood, whose Palestinian branch is the Hamas terrorist organization, is a nonviolent organization. All right, let’s indulge that whopper — let’s, as Mrs. Clinton likes to say, suspend disbelief. Accepting the Brothers and their followers as “non-jihadists” tells us only what they are not — namely, terrorists. Mrs. Clinton avoided telling us what they are — namely, Islamists.

shyamd wrote:UAE has announced $1bn project in India. L&T is the top bidder for a airport project in Abu Dhabi worth $250m. Qatari company just paid $100m to buy a stake into a Indian food exporter.

New Delhi: Qatar’s Hassad Food Co., which has interests in agriculture and livestock companies across the globe, has acquired an undisclosed majority stake in New Delhi-based Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd for an estimated $100 million.

This is the Doha-based company’s first investment in India and it is scouting for more deals.
“We will use these investments to grow our brands both in the domestic as well as the international markets,” Virkaran Awasty, chairman and managing director of Bush Foods, said in a statement.

Bush Foods, which had a revenue of $235 million in FY 2012, produces and exports packaged basmati rice under the Neesa, Himalayan Crown and Indian Star brands to more than 70 countries. It also entered the ready-to-cook microwave foods and spices category 15 months ago.

NEW DELHI: Dubai-based realty firm Al Fajer Properties on Wednesday announced its plans to invest up to $1 billion to develop commercial and townships projects in India through joint venture route.

"We have looked at several locations - Gurgaon, Gujarat, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Chandigarh - for investments up to $1 billion through a joint venture," Al Fajer CEO Shahram Abdullah Zadeh said. Al Fajer is in talks with two real estate developers in India and the JV is likely to be finalised soon, he said.

Larsen & Toubro is poised to bag a Rs1,500-crore ($274m) road project in Abu Dhabi with a local partner as part of its push for overseas project work.

India's Economic Times reported that a joint venture between L&T and the UAE's Delma Engineering had emerged the best bidder for the Abu Dhabi Department of Transport's project for widening of Mafraq to Al Ghweifat highway, citing a senior Delma executive.

shyamd wrote:You tell me since you have the answers and know more about Sonia's skills. Can you tell us if there are other nations willing to provide us with the finance for infrastructure. Can you tell us about the link between infrastructure and the development of the economy? Apart from Japan can you provide us with a list of countries willing to invest in this size into India?

Since you have more knowledge on Sonia can you please tell us about her role in investment committees and her role in red tape process.

RamaY wrote: The question you should ask yourself is "why" no one (including Indian companies) is willing to invest in India?.

Just remove termite-congress system and India will have at least $10-20B additional resources per annum to invest in infrastructure without prostrating to desert masters.

What is the point of calling for memory, including the memory of massacres at Deir Yassin? It is not to respond in hatred and venom, and not to respond in kind. But to make sure that for those of us who dare to speak of a just and peaceful tomorrow, to always know and remember that justice is not the same as amnesia

"250 men, women, children and the elderly, and stuffed many of the bodies down wells.
There were also reports of rapes and mutilations... Their tactics have not changed."

"We have no choice but victory. If we don't win, Syria will be finished and I don't think this is a choice for any citizen in Syria," Assad said in a television interview.

President Bashar al-Assad also said on Wednesday that thousands of fighters had crossed into Syria from Jordan to battle government forces and warned that the conflict could spread to Jordanian territory.

"The fire will not stop at our border and everybody knows that Jordan is exposed as Syria is," Assad said in an interview broadcast on Al-Ikhbariya television.

Syria's Assad ready for dialogue with opposition

Syrian President Bashar Assad is ready for talks with any opposition faction and says that a national dialogue remains the backbone of a political settlement in the country.

In an interview with the Al-Ikhbariya satellite network on Wednesday he said there were no red lines for the start of such a dialogue, but its participants must adhere to the country’s independence and the war on terror.

“Any opposition must be elected and have a support base inside the country. Those who take money from others and demands the destruction of his country cannot be called a patriot,” President Assad added.

West will pay dearly for aiding Al-Qaeda: Assad

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad accused Western nations of funding Al-Qaeda and warned they will pay dearly for their actions, according to excerpts of an interview to be broadcast later Wednesday.

"The West has paid heavily for funding Al-Qaeda in its early stages," Assad told Syria's pro-regime Al-Ikhbariya television, according to his office.

"Today it is doing the same in Syria, Libya and other places, and will pay a heavy price in the heart of Europe and the United States."

Defeat would spell end for Syria: Assad

President Bashar al-Assad said on Wednesday that defeat in the conflict opposing his regime to rebels determined to oust him from power would spell the end for Syria.

"There is no option but victory, otherwise it will be the end of Syria and I don't think that the Syrian people will accept such an option," he said.

"The truth is there is a war and I repeat: no to surrender, no to submission," Assad said in an interview to be broadcast later the same day with the pro-regime television Al-Ikhbariya, according to excerpts released by his office.

‘Homemaker’ had alleged that a mission official was involved in a prostitution racket here
By Sharmila Dhal, Senior ReporterPublished: 22:17 April 17, 2013
Be the first to comment
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services5

Image Credit:
Grave charges: The Indian Consulate in Dubai. A spokesperson denied allegations by a Dubai homemaker about a consulate official being part of a prostitution ring in the UAE
Dubai: The Indian Consulate in Dubai has strongly denied that any of its officials are involved in a prostitution ring or that it turned a blind eye to the issue of human trafficking here.
The denial came after a complaint filed by a Dubai-based woman to an Indian minister in which she accused a consulate employee of being part of a prostitution racket in the UAE.
On April 5, The Hindu newspaper in India reported that a “Malayalee homemaker in Dubai was in for a shock when she went out of her way to help a Kerala woman escape from a brothel in the Gulf state. In a letter to Kerala Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan, she has accused an employee of the Indian consulate of being part of a prostitution racket in the UAE.”
A spokeswoman of the Indian Consulate told XPRESS: “The story that appears in The Hindu does not refer to much of the information provided by us to [the correspondent] and is not conclusive and talks of allegations which are not proven.”
She said: “We reject any suggestion that this consulate and its officials turn a blind eye to any issues of human trafficking involving Indian nationals.”
The Hindu report said the Dubai resident’s letter was given to the minister last month by Anweshi, a non-governmental organisation on women’s rights. It said the letter was written after the “homemaker” was allegedly threatened by a consulate employee and that in mid-2012, she had tried to help a “Malayali woman who was lured to Ajman with the offer of a maid job at a Malayali doctor’s house in Dubai. Only on reaching Ajman did she realise that she was trapped in a prostitution racket allegedly run … by a person wanted by the Kerala Police.”
The report alleged that the victim was locked up and raped repeatedly by the brothel’s customers. That was when her family asked for the “homemaker’s” help.
The woman reportedly said in her letter she first tried to contact the Indian Consulate in Dubai on its emergency number. “In response to the distress call, the consulate asked her to send an email with the details of the case and said action would be taken only after the weekend holiday. She later went to the Ajman Police, who raided an apartment being used as a brothel by the racket.”
Four victims, three of them from Kerala, were arrested in the apartment.
The Indian newspaper alleged that according to the letter, the Indian Consulate official visited the victim in prison and verbally abused her and allegedly threatened the “homemaker” for rescuing the victim from the flat.
Consul General speaks
It said in response to its queries, ‘Sanjay Verma, Consul General, confirmed that the consulate employee was part of the team that visited the Ajman prison to examine the case. However, he termed the allegations that consulate officials were protecting those involved in human trafficking as baseless. He said the consulate had been tracking the victim’s case and had tried to meet her when she was housed at a shelter in Ras Al Khaimah, but they had been denied permission. “This consulate is proactive in such matters and also runs a shelter to house distressed women, including victims or participants in human trafficking,’ the paper quoted him as saying.