Monday 10 October 2016

முக ஆடை தரித்த முஸ்லிம் பெண்கள் மீது லண்டன் தெருத் தாக்குதல்கள்

RACE HATE Police hunt yobs who pulled down Muslim woman’s hijab in ‘racially motivated’ attack that took place in broad daylight

Cops are still hunting for the two suspects that carried out the assault in Tottenham, north London, which left the victim ‘shocked and distressed’
 The SUN  9th October 2016

A MUSLIM woman had her Hijab ripped from her head as she was strolling down a street with pals in a “racially and religiously motivated” assault.

The woman, in her 20s, was walking on Tottenham High Road in north London with a friend and another woman at 7.30pm two weeks ago when she was attacked.
The Express 2016


This shocking video shows the moment a 16-year-old girl wearing a hijab was struck in the head in an unprovoked attack on an east London street. 

Tasneem Kabir suffered broken teeth and a smashed lip after she was hit by Michael Ayoade, 34, as she walked to college in Plaistow, Newham, on the afternoon of November 13, 2012.
He was arrested after police released CCTV footage of the horrific attack, which showed Ayoade jogging away from the scene as Miss Kabir lay unconscious on the ground.
The Daily Mail 2012








தாக்குதலுக்குள்ளான இதர பெண்கள்

தாக்குதலுக்குள்ளான இதர பெண்கள்

தாக்குதலுக்குள்ளான இதர பெண்கள்

93 days on, pellet horror continues across Kashmir

93 days on, pellet horror continues across Kashmir

12-year-old schoolboy’s killing again puts a spotlight on lethality of pellet guns | In just 90 days, Junaid becomes 14th victim of so-called non-lethal weapon


ZEHRU NISSA
Srinagar, Publish Date: Oct 10 2016 12:09AM | Updated Date: Oct 10 2016 12:09AM

File Photo: 93 days on, pellet horror continues across Kashmir

With pellets causing death of 12-year-old schoolboy in Srinagar on Saturday morning—triggering widespread protests and outcry—the lethality of this crowd control weapon has once again come into focus in Kashmir.

Junaid Ahmad from Srinagar’s Eidgah locality was hit by pellets in his head and chest on Friday, leading to his death at the SK Institute of Medical Sciences here on Saturday.

Junaid’s death triggered massive protests in several areas, apart from widespread condemnations from across the political divide in Kashmir. Junaid is the 14th victim of the deadly pellets that the government had pitched as “non-lethal ammunition” for crowd control, in a span of three months.

Apart from these 14 deaths, pellets have also been responsible for injuries to eyes of more than 1000 people since July 9—the day protests broke out across Kashmir over the death of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Muzaffar Wani a day earlier. Most of the victims hit in eyes are schoolgoing children and teenagers, according to doctors here.

Although there has been a massive outcry across Kashmir, as well as in the international media, over the ‘indiscriminate’ use of pellets on street protesters, the state government has justified its use. And despite assurances from no less than the Home Minister of India Rajnath Singh that the use of pellets would be “reviewed”, nothing has changed on ground.

On July 26, the Ministry of Home Affairs had constituted a seven-member committee for exploring alternatives to the pellet guns after these wreaked havoc across Kashmir. But barely a few days after the announcement, a Joint Secretary in the Ministry, TVSN Prasad, who headed the seven-member committee, clarified that pellet guns would not be discontinued but used in ‘rarest of the rare cases’—something that evoked widespread criticism.

The committee recommended use of PAVA shells, a 1000 canister consignment of which was flown to Kashmir on September 4—the day an all-party parliamentary delegation visited the Valley. However, the shells were not put to use due to ‘certain issues’ including ‘poor emission and efficacy’ reported by forces who ‘test fired’ these in Kashmir.

Pellet injuries in eyes, according to doctors, are causing vision impairment of varying degree and even total blindness in some cases.

Insha Malik, the 14-year-old girl from Shopian—who lost her both eyes to pellets—is one such victim. Doctors say there are at least 50 more persons whose both eyes have been hit by pellets.

The cases of damage to vital organs due to pellet injuries have also been profiled in the past 90 days and many people have a permanent disability starring in their faces due to such injuries, doctors said.

18-year-old Mohsin, a youth from southern Pulwama district who was hit by an ‘entire cartridge of pellets’ in his spine is confined to bed, doctors said, and as per hospital records, many others have suffered brain damage due to this so-called non-lethal weapon.

As per records consolidated from hospitals across Kashmir, more than 7000 people have suffered injuries due to pellets in the past three months. On October 13, the figure of injuries due to pellets stood at 7136.

Since the announcement for exploring the alternatives to pellet guns was made by Rajnath Singh during a press conference in Srinagar, five people lost their lives to pellets and about 500 more were hit in eyes and thousands more injured in parts of their bodies (other than eyes), including some vital organs.

On September 22, 2016, the High Court of J&K refused to ban use of pellet guns as a weapon of crowd control. Earlier, police had submitted before the Court that ‘handling of law and order situation is the constitutional and legal duty of the State’ and ‘What method is required to give effect in order to control law and order has to be left to the State’.

Police had also claimed that ‘pellet gun (12 Bore Pump Action Gun) is sparingly used when all other modes of crowd control i.e. tear gas, oleoresin grenades, stun grenades fail to yield any desired results.”

Doctors opine that the known pellet deaths might not be the exact figure of causalities attributable to this weapon. “In some cases, in the initial few days of protests, some people died and were not brought to hospitals. Some of them might have died of pellets,” they said.

Doctors at SMHS Hospital reported that a youth aged about 20 was brought to the hospital with severe pellet injuries in his head but could not be admitted due to his death ‘within minutes of reaching the hospital’. He is recorded only as a short stay patient with his name not known.

“A spray of pellets had pierced his head making a large hole on one side and exited from the other side,” a doctor said. “His whole brain was shattered.”

Afghanistan: 15 Years of Invasion and Occupation

Video: Afghanistan: Fifteen Years of Invasion and Occupation

By James Corbett and Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, October 08, 2016
Fifteen years after NATO’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 9/11 and Al Qaeda lies that were used to justify the war have disappeared.

Now the truth about oil and gas, mineral wealth, opium and naked imperial ambition are all that remain.

The ambitions of Empire.

One Step Closer to military confrontation.

This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV.

October 7th marks the 15 anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan

Fifteen years of massacres, fifteen years of drone strikes and civilian massacres…

We were told that the invasion of Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attacks. A carefully constructed lie.

GRTV Video Produced by James Corbett

ஆப்கானில் அமெரிக்கப் போர் 15 ஆம் ஆண்டு ENB Poster


``முகமதுவின் மண்ணில் காலூன்றி,நிலை கொண்டுள்ள, அபவிசுவாசிகளின் படைகள் வெளியேறாத வரையில், அவர்களின் சொந்த நாடுகள், தாம் பாதுகாப்பாக வாழ முடியும் என ஒரு போதும் கனவு காண முடியாது!``

15 Years Into Afghan War



ASIA PACIFIC

15 Years Into Afghan War, Americans Would Rather Not Talk About It
The Interpreter
By MAX FISHER SEPT. 20, 2016

American soldiers during Afghan National Army training at Camp Bastion in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in March. This year’s presidential campaign has hardly touched the war in Afghanistan. Credit Adam Ferguson for The New York Times

The United States will soon mark 15 full years of war in Afghanistan, but you wouldn’t know it from the political discourse.

Democrats and Republicans seem to have something of a rare, if unspoken, truce on the subject. Even amid deepening partisan polarization, with the most frivolous issues seized for political gain, no one seems eager to discuss a war that is still costing American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

This year’s presidential campaign, in which mass deportations and the NATO alliance are on the table, has hardly touched it. When Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump squared off at a recent televised forum on national security issues, they were surrounded by an audience of veterans, many of whom had fought in Afghanistan, but the war barely came up.

And though the election has grown most heated over terrorism and immigration, the candidates showed rare restraint on Monday, when the police arrested an Afghan-born American citizen, Ahmad Khan Rahami, on suspicion of planting bombs in Manhattan and New Jersey.

Mr. Trump’s response was typically harsh and Mrs. Clinton’s typically detailed, but neither had much to say about Afghanistan. That is a conspicuous and newfound prudence for

both candidates, who have been eager to discuss Syria and Iraq immediately after terrorist attacks linked to those countries.

Whether or not investigators find connections between these bombings and American action in Afghanistan, it is increasingly apparent that America’s public and policy makers alike would rather not address their faraway, largely failed war.

Neither party has an incentive to call attention to this bipartisan failure. Neither has a better policy to offer. And neither sees any political gain in raising it. Voters, entering their fourth consecutive presidential election with the United States at war, seem happy to pretend that the Afghan war, which has killed more than 2,300 American service members, doesn’t exist.

The result is an awkward national silence whenever Afghanistan’s chaos inevitably imposes itself on our attention, like a family pretending not to hear the troubled relative pound the Thanksgiving table.

It is not hard to see why Americans shun the topic. They have experienced the war as a long series of bitter failures and of noble missions that turned out not to be. 

They have disengaged out of moral self-preservation as much as exhaustion.

For decades, leaders portrayed Afghanistan as a beautiful but lawless land to which the United States would bring order and American values, somewhat similar to the old Western frontier. Their adventure began in 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded and the United States armed Afghan rebels. President Ronald Reagan called this “a compelling moral responsibility of all free people” and a battle for “the human spirit.” Rebel leaders were romanticized and taken on tours of American churches, according to “The Looming Tower,” a book by the journalist Lawrence Wright.

Those rebels turned against one another in a long civil war that gave rise to the Taliban. Americans were then sold on invading Afghanistan in 2001, to bring the Sept. 11 attackers and their accomplices to justice. The Taliban government quickly fell, raising a question that became obvious only after it was raised: Now what? What should take the Taliban’s place, and how to make it stick despite the group’s continued support?

Iraq quickly distracted attention and resources from the Afghanistan question until 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president while promising to end the former and win the latter. Afghanistan became the good war. Americans were sold on promoting democracy and, later, on saving the women — an ambition captured by a 2010 Time magazine cover showing an Afghan woman who had been mutilated by Taliban officers.

But practice did not match the ideals. Seeking allies where it could, the United States often directly empowered warlords whose corruption, drug trafficking and violence seemed little better than the Taliban’s. Drones proliferated overhead and airstrikes killed civilians on the ground, provoking anguished debate at home. Pakistan, at once Washington’s closest and least reliable ally in the war, played both sides.

Americans were left feeling they had compromised their morality, and to little gain. As the 9/11 attacks receded more than a decade into the past, it became harder to argue for the war’s necessity. American gains against Al Qaeda only drew more attention to the loftier goals that never seemed to advance.

The operation so completely failed to uproot the Taliban or build a functioning government that American officials became convinced that withdrawal would lead to total collapse — and that collapse would be unacceptably costly. With even the most meager goals unmet, the Obama administration settled on something even less ambitious.

Douglas Ollivant, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, put it bluntly when he told The New York Times last year that Americans had quietly decided on spending “somewhere between $10 and $20 billion per year in perpetuity for the privilege of Afghanistan not totally collapsing.”

That is not an inspiring mission. But voters, tired of inspiring Afghanistan missions, have stopped asking why we’re still fighting. So political leaders have not bothered to contort themselves into providing an explanation. Rather, in regular-as-clockwork annual speeches, Mr. Obama has simply delayed or slowed troop withdrawals.

Normally, an opposition party might profit from Mr. Obama’s broken promises and policy disappointments. But in 2012, neither he nor his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, showed much desire to debate Afghanistan. Both candidates offered policies that were functionally the same: withdrawal.

Neither wanted to promise a solution, knowing he would have to deliver. Neither offered a way to end the chaos before departing, or to cope with its consequences once American troops had left.

Four years later, the country is barely standing, the Taliban is resurgent and refugee outflows are high. The United States has assumed an unspoken role as indefinite occupier, with just enough troops to stave off Afghanistan’s implosion but not enough to make that implosion any less inevitable. The question of whether the United States should play this role has not really come up in the presidential primaries or the general campaign, partly because so few Americans want to even acknowledge it is happening.

There is no known link yet between Afghanistan’s deterioration and the attacks in which Mr. Rahami is charged. Even if one emerges, it will have little bearing on the roughly 100,000 Afghans in the United States, many of whom are refugees from this long war and pose no unusual threat; attacks by Afghans appear no more common than those from any other group.

If anything, the significance is for the thousands of innocent Afghans still fleeing the country, often on dangerous, desperate journeys to Europe.

But even the search for links between Mr. Rahami and his birth country has reminded Americans of their unacknowledged 51st state, where Washington has ruled — indirectly, and to little positive effect — for longer than most hereditary monarchs.

Follow Max Fisher on Twitter @Max_Fisher.

அநுரா ஆட்சியில் செல்வினின் பனை அபிவிருத்தி சபைத் தலைவர் பொறுப்பு பறிப்பு!

அநுரா ஆட்சியில் செல்வினின் பனை அபிவிருத்தி சபைத் தலைவர் பொறுப்பு பறிப்பு! பனை அபிவிருத்தி சபைத் தலைவராக இரானியேஸ் செல்வின் அவர்களைப் பொறுப்ப...