Expert Author Gary Jacobsen
Most Americans are generally aware that the United States and Russia have huge stockpiles of nuclear warheads. But this matter has never loomed large until recently. Now Americans are hearing bellicose statements by the president that can be interpreted only as veiled threats of nuclear strikes against Iran and North Korea. Such statements, if taken seriously, could precipitate a nuclear conflict.
How has this situation come about? Prior administrations did not brag about the American nuclear arsenal, nor did they take actions that would aggravate international tensions. In fact, in July, 2015, the United States, along with five other nations, agreed to lift economic sanctions against Iran in return for that country's pledge not to develop nuclear weapons. Since then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly inspected all possible nuclear weapons sites and certified that Iran was in compliance, most recently on May 24, 2018.
In spite of this, the current president stated that "The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into", and in August, 2018, his Administration re-imposed economic sanctions on that country.Mr. Trump justified his action by saying "America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction. And we will not allow a regime that chants "Death to America" to gain access to the most deadly weapons on Earth." On July 22, 2018, Mr. Trump published the following statement on Twitter: "To Iranian President Rouhani: never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered... " Was he referring, indirectly, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Iran did not have any nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles. American cities were not threatened with destruction.
The country of North Korea has also been the object of Mr. Trump's wrath and sometimes ridicule. On January 2, 2018, Mr. Trump published the following Tweet: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" Also, journalists Peter Baker and Choe Sang-Hun wrote the following in the August 8, 2017, issue of the New York Times: "President Trump threatened on Tuesday to unleash 'fire and fury' against North Korea if it endangered the United States, as tensions with the isolated and impoverished nuclear-armed state escalated into perhaps the most serious foreign policy challenge yet of his administration. In chilling language that evoked the horror of a nuclear exchange, Mr. Trump sought to deter North Korea from any actions that would put Americans at risk. But it was not clear what specifically would cross his line. Administration officials have said that a preemptive military strike, while a last resort, is among the options they have made available to the president."
A preemptive military strike against North Korea? Is it that easy to do? No. Also, it does not matter if military strikes against North Korea (or Iran, for that matter) are with conventional or nuclear munitions. Mr. Trump and his advisors need to read applicable laws and Congressional Resolutions before they threaten to militarily strike another country.
Let's begin with the U. S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, states that only the Congress has the authority to declare war. Also, the Presidential War Powers Resolution, frequently called the Presidential War Powers Act, states that the executive branch must consult with and report to Congress before involving U.S. forces in foreign hostilities. Defenders of broad, unfettered action by the president argue that Article II, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution states that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and of the militias of the various states, and that position supersedes the war-restricting authority of the Congress. This title, however, is political rather than military. It is intended to protect our civilian government from a military takeover. It is not a military title that enables the president to personally command military forces. Most important, it does not mean that the president can unilaterally order nuclear strikes against other countries.
Department of Defense directive 5100.30 states "The NCA (National Command Authorities) consists [singular verb] only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their deputized alternates or successors. The chain of command [for conventional military operations] runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands. The channel of communication for execution of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) [nuclear war] and other time-sensitive operations shall be from the NCA through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the executing commanders."
The directive thus imposes a two-man rule on presidential authority to order or direct military operations, either conventional or nuclear. In the first case decisions must go through both the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff before they can be implemented. In the second case, the NCA decisions go directly to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then to the executing commanders. There is no provision for the President of the United States to act unilaterally in either case.
There is one possible exception to the presidential two-man rule. In the unlikely event a major nuclear power has unleashed a missile attack on the United States, our retaliatory response must be swift and certain. If the president hesitates or is otherwise uncertain what to do, a senior military officer will make the decision for him. The scenario might be as follows:
Mr. President. This is the NMCC. We are tracking 60 inbound Russian
missiles. We must execute the SIOP, and we recommend SAO-2, withhold
Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Our current president might respond by asking: What is SIOP? What is SAO-2? What does "withhold" mean? Instead of trying to hold a last-minute tutorial on nuclear war for Mr. Trump, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will simply direct the NMCC to release an Emergency Action Message and execute the SIOP. The alternative would be widespread destruction in the United States without the benefit of retaliation. In this limited scenario, the two-man rule would be irrelevant.
Conclusion. Blustering, threatening statements by the President of the United States do not advance the security or other interests of this country. They may be misunderstood by other countries, some of which have nuclear arsenals of their own. Further, since both nuclear and non-nuclear military missions are subject to a two-man decision rule for safety, response times are critically important if the United States is under attack. Our national leaders must always demonstrate maturity, professionalism, and restraint when discussing nuclear warfare.
Expert Author Madan G Singh
in the summer of 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte embarked on his most ambitious campaign, the invasion of Russia. The Grand Army consisting of over 600,000 soldiers commenced the invasion of Russia under the personal command of Napoleon. While Napoleon was away, many generals and commanders who were opposed to Napoleon hatched a plot to remove him and seize power. It is something equivalent to the July 1944 plot to eliminate Hitler.
The Plot
The brain behind the plot was General Claude-Francois Malet. He was a general of the French army, but had his own ambitions and thus parted company from Napoleon. Malet was born in 1754 and was 58 years old at that time. He was imprisoned by Napoleon and while he was in prison, he hatched this plot to overthrow Napoleon. His partner in prison, a man named Abbe Lafon an expert forger, greatly enthused him in his plan and promised to help him. He was the man who forged fictitious orders and papers for the coup attempt.
The coup attempt
Malet put his plan into effect on 23 October 1812., when Napoleon was in Moscow. He arrived in full regalia as a general of the French army and brought a sheaf of papers (all forged) with him. He arrived at the military barracks in Paris and grandly announced that Napoleon was dead in Moscow. He announced that he had been authorized to declare a provisional republic and showed papers which promoted the commander of the military barracks to the next rank. He thus won over an important part of the establishment loyal to Napoleon.
He announced that he was general Lamotte( an assumed name) and proceeded to ask the commander of the barracks to release two generals namely General Ladurie and Guidal from prison. These generals had fallen out with Napoleon and imprisoned. General Ladurie immediately resumed duty and took command of his old regiment. The plot was now moving smoothly until an officer named General Hulin got suspicious and almost recognized Malet. He wanted to see the papers of Malet and as Malet had no papers, there was a scuffle and Hulin was shot dead. In real terms, Malet had no choice as otherwise, his entire plan was likely to be compromised.
The sound of gunshots alerted the guards and they rushed in and surrounded Malet. They asked for the identity papers of Malet. Here was the fly in the ointment, as Malet had taken care of all contingencies, but had failed to forge any papers about him. He had no identification that he was General Lamotte and as such was promptly arrested.
Failure and execution
The coup thus collapsed and Malet and about 15 other conspirators were arrested. News also came that Napoleon was alive and well. A court-martial was immediately convened and all the 15 including Malet were sentenced to death by firing squad. Within a week Napoleon approved the findings of the Court Martial and all the 15 were executed. Keeping the rank of Malet in view, he was allowed to give the command for his own execution. All the 15 were executed outside Paris and the curtain came down on the coup attempt.
Napoleon returned defeated but defiant from Russia and it was another 3 years before he was removed from power and finally exiled to St Helena in the Atlantic. General Malet remains a footnote in French history. it is important to study this case and realize that enemies of the state have no place in the life of a nation.
Expert Author Madan G Singh
have had the privilege of visiting Pakistan many times, mostly it was in connection with my official work. I must admit that I was always treated with great respect and I had the occasion of befriending many officers of the Pakistan army. These were always friendly talks but it gave me an insight into the Pakistani mind.
After discussion with my Pakistani friends, I was able to get an insight into what Pakistan thinks about India. We should not dismiss their thoughts and opinions as if they are of no consequence. It is vital to understand their psyche and the hurt they feel. Yes, some of it is true. I will briefly summarise the thoughts of the Pakistanis vis a vis India.
Firstly, many Pakistanis say that till 1943 there was no talk of Pakistan. The talk for Pakistan commenced only after Gandhi and Nehru in a devious manner stopped the installation of Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the Prime Minister of India( this is corroborated by Leonard Moseley in his book "The last days of the Raj") In addition, the failure to give constitutional guarantees to Muslim minority by both Gandhi and Nehru sowed the seeds of Pakistan. Generally, in Pakistan, this is cited as an example of discrimination against Muslims.
Secondly, during the 1971 crisis, India actively intervened in Bangladesh to break up Pakistan into two parts( I am afraid this is true). They say the Mukti Bahni on its own could not kill even a chicken. Yet Indian Army officers and soldiers were operating deep inside East Bengal in the guise of Mukti Bahini. When you are crying hoarse that Pakistani supported terrorists are operating in the Kashmir is really meaningless.The fact remains that the country which first started operations inside the territory of Pakistan was India when it sent soldiers inside East Pakistan disguised as Mukti Bahini to attack the Pakistan army and their soldiers at every opportunity.
It was India as per many Pakistani which opened the Pandora's box of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan also feels that it is India which is killing innocent Kashmiri youth and labeling all the killed Kashmiri youth as terrorists coming from Pakistan. This is a total lie. Pakistani also feel Indians are not sincere and they are consumed by hatred of Pakistan and Muslims in particular.
Pakistani view Narendra Modi as a murderer, as a man who got hundreds of Muslims killed during the 2003 riots in Gujarat. I have heard Bilal Bhutto talking on TV and saying that the perception of Pakistan about Modi is that he has blood on his hands. The feeling in Pakistan is that India and particular the RSS have not reconciled to the creation of Pakistan.
Pakistanis point out that Sikh's and Hindus live in peace in Pakistan and are protected by constitutional rights. They point out that article 9 of the Pakistan constitution gives guarantees the religious minorities, right to life and property. As per them in India, no such constitutional guarantee exists for Muslims with the result that Hindu Muslim riots are frequent phenomena.
As things stand, I do not think there will be peace with Pakistan because Pakistani want to avenge the creation of East Pakistan. They say their country was broken by India and they will not rest till they pay back India in the same coin.
Expert Author Madan G Singh
Recently I had been to Burma, now called Myanmar. A fact that stood out was that the Burmese Army had a constitutional role in the governing of the state. I came to know that 30% of the seats in Parliament are reserved for the army and only the remaining 70% is up for grabs. This means the Army controls Burma. In addition to defense, border relations and home affairs remain under the control of the Army. I am deliberately giving the example of Burma which is a Buddhist country and not Pakistan. The matter does not end with Burma and in Thailand also which again is a Buddhist country the Army is in the driver seat.
India's neighbors
Thus in Southeast Asia, two of India's immediate neighbors are controlled by the army. One can safely say that if the army was not in power in these two states, there is every chance that there would be very little progress and the country could have degenerated into a violent place. This fact cannot be denied. Pakistan is the twin of India and one can say that the roots of both nations are the same as both inherited a British Indian Army but in Pakistan after 1957 when general Ayub Khan took over as the President, the Pakistan army has a constitutional role in the Governance of Pakistan. As things stand now Pakistan is beset by extremist jihadists war supported by the Pakistan Taliban and the ISIS. I can safely say if the army was not acting against them, the state of Pakistan would have long ago fallen and become a totally theoretic state.
Many people have asked me about India? Here also fissiparous tendencies are rearing their head and the country despite its massive size unable to exert even against Pakistan which is one fifth the size of India. Even a small country like Sri Lanka captures Indian fishermen from Tamilnadu with impunity and the Indian government keeps sitting on its haunches.
What history says
A look at history will give us some insights into the role of the army in India. During British days the commander in chief of the British Indian Army was the second most important person in India after the viceroy. The Indian Army literally perpetuated the Raj that is the reason that the commander in chief used to stay in Teen Murti house which was later occupied by Pandit Nehru simply because there is a direct route from Teen Murti to the Vice Regal Lodge and the commander-in-chief could easily meet the Governor-general for any policy decision. Without being explicitly stated the Army was part of the governing process in India during the days of the Raj
After independence in 1947 the set of leaders who took power at the helm in India were men with a very little strategic horizon and in any case, knew nothing of power politics or heard the name of Clausewitz. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who took over as PM was very suspicious of the Army and began taking steps to dismantle the control of the army over the country. In this effort, sadly one has to note that the successive chiefs of the Army led by General Cariappa played ball with Nehru. Cariappa set the ball rolling when he along with general Rajinder Singhji agreed for the post of the C-in-C to be abolished. Cariappa was beholden to Nehru as he had been made the chief of the Army when he was not the senior most general. Nehru at that time superseded Lieutenant General Kulwant Singh to make Cariappa the Army Chief. Obviously, he was not in a position to oppose Nehru. This state of affairs started from that time and successive generals including the infamous general Bewoor agreed to a 30% deduction of pensions of the Indian soldiers without a murmur.
Sidelining army
Nehru and the Congress Party also set in motion a series of checks and balances by which generals who were forthright or strong never rose up. There are many examples of generals like Bhagat and Sinha being superseded. The Indian Army thus became literally a shadow of what it was during the days of the Raj. The government also ensured that anybody going up the rank of Colonel would be a man who would be compliant to the political leadership. There is nothing wrong with it but the fact is the political leadership had ulterior motives in keeping the Army toothless. This had disastrous effects as India lost a war to China in 1962 as well as losing almost 40000 square miles of Indian territory to the Dragon. India also lost Tibet as a buffer state and due to the vacillations of the political leadership, India lost 40% of Kashmir as well. Unable to realize the gravity of a Maoist revolution the political leadership allowed internal insurrection to flourish and even now this is going on with almost 30% of the land in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand under the control of the Maoists. The political leadership has made a complete mess of Central India. This is not all, as an insurrection is on in Nagaland and the northeast since 1955 and is still Simmering.
Toothless army leadership
All this could have been avoided in case the army leadership had asserted itself and worked out a method by means of which it would have a say in the running of the government. But most of the Army top hierarchy was not interested and their only interest was to get promoted with the result, the Army never pressurized the government for anything. Giving a small example a perk like free rations for the officers was discontinued and the Army chief general Rawat has been unable to do anything about it. If an army general cannot exert himself in such a case one can well imagine what say he will have in matters of policy. The political leadership has ensured that though India may become second fiddle to China, they will not allow the Army any say in the political setup in India. Since 1947 despite lip service, the political leadership from the time of Nehru has been suspicious of the Army
Much of this sorry state of affairs lies with the top brass of the army officers corps. It is very amusing now to read some of the retired general and admirals saying that the constitution is sacred and the army should be happy with whatever they get. They are also opposing a good agitation started by General Satbir Singh for one rank one pension. As yet OROP is not sanctioned by the government and most of these retired worthies are still insisting that there should be no agitation against the government. The reason is that these men when they were in service never exerted themselves as they feathered their own nest and now they feel ashamed of their background and oppose a good cause as being carried forward by Satbir Singh
Future
If India has to move forward there is no choice but for the army to assert itself. Old generals and Admiral talking of the constitution is sacred would mean that a revolution should never take place. These are the man who would even like something like the French Revolution or the Chinese revolution never to take place. This is a great danger to India we cannot accept the status quo which talks of caste divisions and classes of society and divisions on the basis of language and religion. The army must assert itself and be part of a constitutional process like it is there in Pakistan, Burma, and Thailand
I do not see this happening in my lifetime but I am an optimist and I am certain the hour finds the man. There is every chance that in the decades to come to, a Revolution will happen in India it may not be with a gun but if India is to move forward and be one Nation there is no choice but for the army to shoulder and take part in the Governance of this great nation.
Expert Author Rick Lucas
One of the more unique forms of military funerals has to be the age-old tradition of burial at sea. The tradition of burial at sea has been conducted for as long as there have been seafaring peoples. A tradition born of necessity. When traveling so very far away with limited space it is only natural that committing the remains of a fellow crew member to the ocean depths would be necessary. It doesn't take much imagination to picture an ancient ship, with very little space, having to deal with the death of a crew mate, more likely due to sickness, and taking measures to protect the rest of the crew by disposing the remains at sea. Thousands of years later that same tradition is still carried out by modern navies.
The US Navy conducts burials at sea for intact remains as well as cremated remains. It is only done while the vessel is deployed so family members would not be allowed to attend.The commanding officer notifies the family after deployment of date, time, latitude and longitude of the location. Individuals eligible for this program are: (1) active duty members of the uniformed services; (2) retirees and veterans who were honorably discharged. (3) U.S. civilian marine personnel of the Military Sealift Command; and (4) dependent family members of active duty personnel, retirees, and veterans of the uniformed services. After the death of the individual for whom the request for Burial at Sea is being made, the Person Authorized to Direct Disposition (PADD) should contact the Navy and Marine Corps Mortuary Affairs office at 1-866-787-0081 to request a packet and for additional information.
Supporting documents which must accompany this request are:
(1) a photocopy of the death certificate
(2) the burial transit permit or the cremation certificate
(3) a copy of the DD Form 214, discharge certificate, or retirement order.
The Burial at Sea Request Form and the three supporting documents listed above make up the Burial at Sea Request package.
The ceremony has religious and military components. Burials at sea are conducted on a regular basis but there is no way to know how many or how often. The Navy does not disclose that information in keeping with their standards of privacy. There have been many burials at sea due to wartime actions as recently as World War II due to long periods of time at sea or the threat of attack. Today, many service members, veterans, and their family members choose to be buried at sea. There are several private companies that will arrange the ceremony for civilians. The long-standing tradition will continue to be conducted to honor those who served, and their family members, in the US Navy.
Expert Author Dr Giora Ram
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Unfortunately, these days those words and goals are still not implemented and probably never will be. There are too many interests involved in establishing such an ideal government. Too much ego, prejudice, and economic, social and many other and conflicting interests are involved in the basic ingredients for melding such a government. Maybe it should be like this in the name of democracy and freedom of choice; maybe the people don't deserve such an ideal government.
The major problem is generating the desired balance among all those ideals and desires. The two extreme possibilities are a government with too much power and a weak, divided government that is unable to make crucial decisions. A government or an organization with enough resources can do almost anything. Not only that, they can even publicly justify their actions in the name of preserving and protecting the democracy. They will support their actions, which may be illegal, immoral or even criminal in the name of justice, for the people and nation. To balance between a completely open society where everything is transparent, visible and known to everybody and a closed society where certain actions and information are known to few is a very difficult task. "People don't have to know everything," may have justification in certain cases. Polls have already proved that the mood of people can be easily manipulated and change directions with time, events and publicity.
Governments can, if they wish, eliminate certain groups or individuals who, in their opinion, oppose and are hostile to their policies. The elimination of a terrorist or a political opponent is as easy to achieve as it is easy to hide from the public. The death or disappearance of such people is explained under categories such as natural causes, accidents, mental hospitalization or death during emergency surgery.
All agencies, unofficial and official, such as the CIA, MI5/6, KGB and the Mossad, were and will be doing "it" in the name of national security. The popular public reason may be: "In order to protect, preserve or even enforce Democracy." In certain cases those actions might be truly justified; the problem is where to set the limit. Many people have disappeared worldwide in the name of national security.
The reason of national security for not disclosing certain information or imprisoning an undesired subject is used too often by many countries and organizations.
Governments operate mainly at three levels. While level one is the clean and white level of activities, reserved for heads of states and highly exposed political figures, level two is the gray area. This is an unethical area of activity which smells bad but is still legal. Killing, eliminating, removing and falsifying are part of level three. Normally, "we the people" are exposed to level one and occasionally to level two, but rarely to level three.
At level three, I can mention for example, Gerald Bull, the Canadian engineer who developed the Babylon or "super-gun" long-range artillery for the Iraqi government. Bull was assassinated in Brussels, Belgium in March 1990.
It is quite interesting to note the language evolution with regard to using politically correct terminologies. The word-laundering is quite fascinating. Terms such as "Terrorists" or "freedom fighters," "guerrillas", "political assassination" or "removing from power" all depends on which side you ask or talk to.
The USA is a super-power with worldwide presence and intervention. In general, they are a stabilizing factor. Many Americans don't understand the importance of their support for certain countries and at the same time many supported countries simply hate their presence.
To better understand the above, try to imagine a world without the U.S. involvement. Let's assume that the U.S. is not a super-power or they evolved from an Empire to a regular Republic interested mainly in their internal affairs.
What would the world look like without U.S. intervention?
Oil is one of the major energy resources of most modern countries. Oil was one of the main reasons for wars and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. It was not a territorial dispute; it was about oil. The Americans are one of the largest oil consumers, so it is obvious why the U.S. was interested in assisting Kuwait.
However, this is not the whole picture. The U.S. involvement all over the world is not only for oil and monetary interests. Most people believe that there are other reasons. In the era of a globalized economy, world stability is essential and according to the Chaos theory, even a small problem in the Middle-East, for example, can generate a chain reaction which affects the U.S. in many areas. Most people believe that the global American intervention is also because they care. They care about establishing and maintaining Democracies and enabling freedom for everybody everywhere possible. Obviously there are other reasons and interests; so what are they?
China is becoming a major player in the world arena. They are the second largest oil consumers. The route of oil to China is secured and enabled by the U.S. Navy. China's long term goal might be to be equal the U.S. and they can achieve it.
Without the U.S., Taiwan would cease to exist as a Democracy and may be annexed to mainland China. Without the U.S., Japan would have to get nuclear capabilities if they wanted to remain independent. They have had a continuing dispute with China since 1937, and the Chinese will never forget the Japanese invasion. The U.S. assisted Iran indirectly by eliminating Saddam Hussein, who had fought Iran over a border dispute for eight years. Saddam Hussein was interested in making Iraq an influential power in the Persian Gulf region. He invaded Iran not only because of the long history of border disputes, but also to enlarge Iraq's oil reserves. Europe wants and needs oil, but they are not willing to pay the full price to get it. They hate the American presence and will not acknowledge that without the U.S., they wouldn't get the oil they need.
Europe's attitude toward Israel is extremely hypocritical. They have a short memory; however what unites Europe against Israel or the Jews is Anti-Semitism.
Since March 2003 when Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Turkey's Prime Minister, their policy toward Israel has changed. Erdogan was unhappy with Israel's reaction to Hezbollah's kidnapping of soldiers in 2006; he was critical when Israel conducted the Gaza War; he asked to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection; and he has criticized Israel for its many defensive actions.
The tension between the countries has escalated following the Gaza flotilla raid.
The question is what his motives are and if he has a hidden agenda that may explain his overzealous attention to Israel. His reactions have gained Turkey influence and sympathy among his Arab neighbors. Particularly, he may have gained certain advantages among his domestic political parties. His special collaborative attention and meetings with Syria and Iran should worry the West and particularly Israel.
The Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK, founded in 1978, is a Kurdish organization which fights against Turkey. Their goal is to establish an independent Kurdish state.
There is a claim by Germany that the Turkish military has used chemical weapons against members of the PKK.
Lebanon is a puppet country controlled by Syria and Iran. Hezbollah or "The Party of God" is a Shi'a Islamic organization involved in Lebanese politics, supported by Syria and Iran. Actually, they are viewed by most of the world as a terrorist organization.
Their forces are trained and organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Their main goal is to eliminate the colonial entity in Lebanon and to establish an Islamic regime.
To achieve that, the Iranians with their supporters all are united under the hatred towards Israel and their desire to eliminate the Zionist entity from the region.
A top secret CIA document released on April 2004 lists the many possible suspects for the assassination of Elie Hobeika, former Lebanese Forces Commander.
Possible culprits include fellow Christians, other members of the Lebanese elite, Palestinians and Israelis.
According to a Western news agency, a previously unknown anti-Syrian group, "Lebanese for a Free and Independent Lebanon." has claimed responsibility. The claim may be associated with rightwing Maronite Christians, who bore a grudge against Hobeika because he betrayed the Lebanese Forces and the Israelis by switching allegiance to the Syrians in the mid-80. Hobeika also was active in Christian infighting during Lebanon's civil war.
Palestinians despise Hobeika because he allegedly directed the massacre of approximately 1,000 Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in 1992.
An Israeli commission in 1983 accused Hobeika of carrying out the massacre and held then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the attack.
Many Lebanese suspect Israeli involvement because Hobeika had said he would testify against Sharon if the Belgians went forward with a trial accusing Sharon of genocide and crimes against humanity for his role in Sabra and Shatilla.
A Belgian court next month will rule on whether a judicial investigation into Sharon's role can proceed.
President Lahud claims Hobeika was killed to stop him from testifying, according to press reports, a sentiment echoed by other government officials.
There is no direct evidence of Israeli involvement in the assassination, but highlighting an Israeli connection could help the Lebanese avoid the internal friction that would arise if a Lebanese group were blamed.
Anybody who thinks that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is over territories is totally wrong.
Israelis are willing to give back certain territories and make peace in exchange for a piece of paper... Unfortunately, based on history, those signed agreements have a very short life time. In the volatile region of the Middle-East Israel will face many difficulties without U.S. support. In the 1980s Soviet military forces in Afghanistan faced a different type of war than they had experienced in the past. The resistance forces fighting them were the mujahedeen.
The Makhtab Al-Khidamat (MAK) was founded by Osama Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, which led to the establishment of Al-Qaeda in 1988. At the end of the Soviet occupation they wanted to extend and justify their operations, so they tried to include other Islamic causes. It is quite obvious that Al-Qaeda benefited from the U.S. funding and training given to the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet invasion.
There are many Al-Qaeda cells which are operative worldwide. Without united cooperation they will continue their terrorist operations including their attempt to get nuclear related weapons.
Expert Author Srinath Senapati
A monotonous mind never repels back. Same is the case of the human mind when it comes to the area of "focus". Life is a context of aiming and establishing. The provenance of the human mind was never understood, nor do its working. Humans often are lenient to the possessive side of one's expectation, rather more submissive to the laxity of it. The mind is carefree and always was. But, the basic aspects never run with this carefree tag attached to it. So, the major point is to make the mind work.
But, how can it work like that without any cognitive relevance? How focus on anything will be an honest one? How can an individual continue with a chronic mental focus to achieve the desired goal or aim? All these erotemes frequently haunt the mind of every individual, no doubt it has got focus or not. But, the mind always preaches the epitome of imaginations and experiences. We cannot deviate the mind from observation, imagination, and relocation of vital expectations that one has ever thought of. Different experiences encapsulate different inexperience and make out a relevant set of foundations. A human mind was never prone to experienced thoughts or intellectual understanding since inception, instead, they are frequent results of some inexperience. Inexperience is the key to the foundational experience. Focus comes from these spectacular blunt characteristics of mind and starts repelling each cognitive approach that the mind undergoes.
The focus is not a mere word of a pin-point projection of one's set mind or integrated thoughts. It also delivers the best experiences, that turn out to form a steady and linear focal point. The achievements related to this particular focal point is commendable in every aspect. It's highly reliable as it makes an individual a big star from itself. There is no greater happiness than self-victory, and there is no greater relaxation then self-establishment. All the side aspects of life such as friendship, love, affection for loved ones come after this. Because, the individual happiness depends on the individual success and the side aspects are just good catalysts to it, adding flavor and charm to life.
The focus is, therefore, a phoenix's feather, installed in mind to cast-away the myriad multiples of a segregated mind. It, therefore, needs to focus on valuable subjects, aspects and the objects which will make life meaningful, tireless in order to keep walking and set multiple goals and achieve together. The simpler is the thought, the lump some focus it needs to be established. The thought process thus endeavors relative happiness and success when put in the spear of focus.