West and Al Qaeda exposed as Tuaregs fight for independence in Northern Mali

[syed_z]

Asalaam O Alaikum to every one.

I have written this for a blog and I decided to post it at Islamic Board as well because Mali is part of our Ummah which is under attack by misguided Muslim groups who claim to be following the only authentic version of Islam and their serious mistakes give pretexts for the Western armies to invade our lands.

The actual freedom movement of the our Tuareg Brothers have been hijacked and Islam is being given a bad image. Please spread the Word..... Salaam.

P:S: Please do not make this thread in to a ground for arguments. Read and discuss. Those who have disagreements can agree to disagree and that should be respected by others but no inciting. No arguments please.

--------------------------------------------------------

Gaddafi's Support for African Revolutionaries

Gaddafi as we know supported the liberation movements like ANC, AZAPO, PAC and BCM of Azania (South Africa), SWAPO of Namibia, MPLA of Angola, MNLA of Tuaregs who received education training and support in Libya. He shared a Pan African vision like the anti colonialist revolutionary figures like Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure, that all African states should move towards one currency and one army with complete independence from the Western Imperial powers.

http://blackagendareport.com/content/libya-getting-it-right-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective

In addition to the above Gaddafi opposed bodies like African Union and declared them to have failed to achieve what they were created for in the first place. Such declarations were a threat to pro Western regimes in Africa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6239656.stm

In the wake of a Western intervention in Libya by NATO forces and their Arab allies, the Tuareg Revolutionaries who had been part of Gaddafi's armed forces fought against the rebel forces of National Transitional Council (NTC). After an almost year long rebellion backed by continued NATO airstrikes which destroyed infrsatructure, killed thousands of Libyan Muslims and toppled Gaddafi's government, the NTC replaced it. Large number of Tuaregs sought refuge back in Northern Mali as the Western backed rebels sought out African soldiers from Gaddafi's army and slaughtered them.


Tuareg Rebellion

Northern Mali is the home to several tribes of Tuaregs who have been fighting for an Independent State of Azawad and their movement is called the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA). "The Tuareg feel like the outsiders of the national economy, completely excluded from the economic resources in many regions," says Salma Belaala, a professor at Warwick University in England who studies jihad in the Sahel. The discrimination has forced the Tuaregs to stage rebellion several times since the 90s in their fight for an independent state which would allow them their rights, being denied by Pro French Bamako regime since 1960s.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/12/world/africa/mali-revolt/index.html

The MNLA joined by Tuareg fighters from Libya, heavily armed with weapons gained from Gaddafis weapons depot gave them the military power in taking over several towns of Northern Mali last year. After a long time the Tuaregs were able to control large parts of Northern Mali and force the Bamako regime to listen to their demands. However break up of Mali is not what they seek as long as Bamako would agree to allow them some sort of federated autonomy within the existing boundaries. This proposal they put forward in December last year during talks with Bamako regime in Burkina Faso hosted by Blaise Compaore, the president of Burkina Faso.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/12/201212420515159568.html

African bodies like The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and African Union (AU) however kept pushing United Nations for approval of intervention in Mali as negotiation talks were taking place in Burkina Faso thus proving their incapability to solve problems of the African continent. This shows their nature of exacerbating a situation rather than providing peaceful resolutions. Alassane Outtara, the president of the Ivory Coast, in his talks with French President said that armed intervention in Mali was "indispensable" and "[should be done] in the shortest time frame".
As the talks were peaceful and the representatives from both sides departed with plans to continue negotiations in the future. However we can most certainly doubt the sincerity of the Bamako regime who after few days of the meeting, welcomed French military Intervention on 11th January 2013.


Emergence of Ansar Dine

Most important to note here is that since the early 2012 when the Tuaregs had taken control of entire Northern Mali, a group named Ansar Dine splintered from the main MNLA. Mali expert Jeremy Keenan described as the MNLA took over a town, and upon its seizure, Ansar Dine entered behind them and “start bossing everyone around about sharia law.”

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/14/who-are-ansar-dine/

The U.S. government's CIA World Factbook says Mali's population is 90% Muslim and Northern Mali is 99% Muslim. Therefore we can assume naturally the population would agree to be ruled by Islamic law. However this was not the main cause of the rebellion, it was due to injustice experienced by Tuaregs in the first place since 1960s when the French withdrew their occupation. Whether Shariah should be implemented or no was not the issue at hand. This division naturally came as good news for the forces in Africa and West determined to undermine the Tuareg movement. Another main reason for the contention between the main body of Tuaregs against Ansar Dine was that the group needs to immediately cancel all ties and give up its association with Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM), which is known to perpetrate attacks around the world on innocent civilians. Because making such claims would give an excuse to the Western regimes to intervene who are already fighting 'War on terror' around the world against Al Qaeda.


Iyad Ag Ghali

Iyad Ag Ghali, the leader of Ansar Dine, is a special case. He first came to public attention in the early 1990s as the leader of a Tuareg revolt seeking independence or greater autonomy for the northern region of Mali for Tuaregs. In August 2003 he played the key role in securing the release of 14 mostly German tourists kidnapped by the Algerian Salafi Group for Call and Combat, GSPC, which later became Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). He negotiated further hostage releases in 2008, 2010 and 2011. After the collapse of the Gaddafis government in Libya in mid-2011, Mr Ghaly reportedly sought the leadership of the MNLA, but he was rebuffed. This was due to his links with AQIM as well as suspicions that he had close links to pro Western Bamako regime. Some see Mr Ghaly and AQIM as tools of the Algerian (and even US) security services.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18814291

Such actions and claims of Ghali are severely damaging the actual cause for which Tuaregs have risen up. In addition to these acts Ansar Dine fighters after taking over Timbuktu known as the 'City of 333 saints' committed aggression. They destroyed many shrines, Sufi centers and even burned down the Ahmed Baba Institute which holds ancient manuscripts of 14th century of astronomy, Islamic law, medicine, literature and poetry all in the name of fighting Bidah (innovation in Islam). This brought criticism from UNESCO and Western media who began portraying more of a connection between the group and MNLA than actually exists. Thus lending more support for a Western intervention.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201207201404.html

Near Timbuktu, part of the vast area of the country controlled by Islamist groups, youths have been taking to the streets armed with machetes and sticks to protest against rebel control. The intolerant and harsh way of implementing Shariah has forced the people of a town to uprise against Ansar Dine, when they were said to have beaten a woman because she had failed to cover her baby's head as she carried it on her back.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/17/islamist-extremists-alqaida-uprising-mali


Al Qaeda and Hostage Crises in Algeria

AQIM has recently claimed responsibility for taking hostage the foreign workers at the Amena Gas Plant in Algeria, which included US, UK and French citizens. Many of them were killed, which is completely alien to Islam as Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians, and their demand was to end Western intervention inside Mali, claiming the Tuareg independence heritage for themselves! Following the attack , UK Prime Minister David Cameron immediately echoed that the Sahara desert has turned into a 'haven for militant Islamists' who are waging a jihad against the West, giving immediate pretext to the West for an attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21150066

The good news we have is that Islamic Movement of Azawad lead by Alghabass Ag Intalla, who represented Ansar Dine at the Burkina Faso meeting, has decided to split from Ansar Dine as it rejects its extremist form of Islamic interpretation. He also warned that al-Qaeda linked Islamists - some of whom were foreigners - threatened to turn Mali into a "terrorist state".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21180766


AQIM a creation of Algerian Secret Service

A recent video released by AQIM, which exclusively was aired by Pro Qatari Al Jazeera, it is trying its best to own the freedom movement of the Tuaregs. A top al-Qaeda commander in North Africa has urged the people of Mali to reject foreign intervention as a way of solving the country's conflict. Their statements are issued as if the entire North Mali is seeking their advice and following them in fighting the pro Western regime for years!

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/11/20121128225040863715.html


Who Really Controls AQIM and their Affiliates

Jeremy Keenan, professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, with his keen observation has argued in Democracy Now, that the Islamist fighters operating in Mali were in fact the creation of the Algerian secret police.

The fighters were also being supplied, supported and orchestrated by the the secret police, he said. "What we have seen unfold in Mali during 2012 is merely the latest manifestation of the way in which the DRS (Algerian secret police) has used the ‘terrorists’ that it has created to further the interests of Algeria’s ‘mafiosi’ state," Keenan argued. Keenan also said that the Algerian secret police were working "with western military intelligence in fabricating ‘false-flag’ terrorism to justify the West’s global war on terror in Africa".

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/10/2012102904734209523.html

Professor Keenan says that the Algerian security service is highly influential among leaders such as Ag Ghaly, with whom it has long had links, as well as with key regional leaders of al Qaeda (such as Abdelhamid abou Zaid). Keenan says he believes the Algerians see some benefit in the "specter" of al Qaeda roaming the desert because it heightens their importance to the United States as a partner in counter terrorism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/12/world/africa/mali-revolt/index.html

 

[Independent]

I have written this for a blog and I decided to post it at Islamic Board as well

Lots of interesting background here that the daily papers struggle to include, Syed. Personally I sympathise with the Tuaregs because they are a people who have got a bad deal out of the modern world state. As a semi nomadic people roaming over a huge area their natural territory unfortunately crosses into many other states - but none of them will want to give anything up. The most obvious other example are the Kurds and life isn't great for them either.

There is still a powerful unspoken assumption in Africa that you don't mess with state boundaries. Because once you open up that particular Pandora's Box, there's no knowing where it will end. So even though the legacy colonial boundaries are in many cases highly unsuitable, the inclination is to stick with them. For that reason most African wars are civil wars.

The opportunist hijacking of the Tuareg rebellion by Answar Dine under a flag of Sharia Law has cost the Tuareg their biggest chance in a generation to carve out their own territory.

I haven't read Keenan's book so I don't know what his evidence is. Although I'm sure there are plenty of dark dealings going on, right now I can't see the advantage for Algeria in assisting/provoking an invasion of Mali by either the Tuaregs or Ansar Dine. The last thing they will want is an attack on their own energy installations. Their current economic success totally depends on the energy sector. Right now, if I were an energy company thinking of prospecting in Algeria, I might choose to wait a little longer to make my mind up.

 

[tearose]

Salam,

I have a couple of questions about your blog.
Firstly, you said that:

The actual freedom movement of the our Tuareg Brothers have been hijacked and Islam is being given a bad image.

You also suggested that their movement didn't originally aim to introduce shariah law. In that case, how would you characterise the type of government they wanted to establish, and what indication do you have that they would introduce shariah law if they achieved their aim to liberate Azawad?

Secondly are you planning to use any sources from regional media?

 

[syed_z]

Thank you very much for your comments and sharing your thoughts Independent. Thank you for taking the time to read.

As a semi nomadic people roaming over a huge area their natural territory unfortunately crosses into many other states - but none of them will want to give anything up. The most obvious other example are the Kurds and life isn't great for them either.

I personally believe that the matter of Kurds is completely different from those of the Tuaregs. The Tuaregs as we can see from their support does not come from the Imperialist Western regimes. The leaders of the Kurdish Rebellion for instance have deep ties to the Zionist Israeli regime as well. The Tuaregs on the other hand has leadership which is independent of all kinds of Western influence and control, particularly that of the National Movement of Liberation of Azawad and chooses to remain as such.

For example in the meeting which took place between MNLA and Bamako Regime, the Tuareg representative made it very clear that it is not a divided Mali that they seek, rather it is a political dialogue with a peaceful resolution to the conflict which can result in end to discrimination and oppression against them. Simple. In other words they dont want to fight.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/12/201212420515159568.html

The Kurdish on the other hand have rebelled because of their increased support of the rebellion by Western regimes.

For example The head of the International Strategic Research Organization, Sedat Laciner, said the Israeli Spy Agency's (Mossad) operatives and the Israeli military's retirees had been sighted providing training to PKK militants in Iraq's Kurdistan, Turkey-based English-language newspaper Today's Zaman said on Sunday.

http://www.whale.to/c/pkk.html

Wayne Madsen reported in his Online Journal that all main factions of Kurds are actually working with Israeli Mossad in their ambition for Greater Israel.

Iraqi nationalists charge that the Israeli expansion into Iraq is supported by both major Kurdish factions, including the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan headed by Iraqs nominal President Jalal Talabani. Talabanis son, Qubad Talabani, serves as the KRGs representative in Washington, where he lives with his wife Sherri Kraham, who is Jewish.


Kurdistan Democratic Party, headed by Massoud Barzani, the president of the KRG. One of Barzanis five sons, Binjirfan Barzani, is reportedly heavily involved with the Israelis.


http://www.infowars.com/israel-hopes-to-colonize-parts-of-iraq-as-greater-israel/

Now if you look closely the, the Northern Iraqi region is already independent of their influence from Baghdad and even have their own army and capital is Arbil. They call their state Iraqi Kurdistan and not Iraq i believe. And the Israeli Backed Masoud Barzani is its President!

Although I'm sure there are plenty of dark dealings going on, right now I can't see the advantage for Algeria in assisting/provoking an invasion of Mali by either the Tuaregs or Ansar Dine. The last thing they will want is an attack on their own energy installations. Their current economic success totally depends on the energy sector.

One thing importantly mentioned in the article above was the Niger hosts largest Uranium reserves in Africa and the country hosts Frances Nuclear plants. Now Niger also has Tuaregs and has experience a rebellion from them as well. Mali also has Africa's largest gold reserves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21150066 (Click on page 3/7)

So we can easily assume that the natural resources will not be so easily exploited by Western regimes like Frances by installing pro Western regimes in African countries, if genuine freedom movements were to become successful. And so I believe French civilians had to die somewhere near Niger and Mali in order for the French to evade all kinds of opposition at home for sending troops for engagement. Especially when the french people's opposition had forced French regime to withdraw just a few weeks ago all of their forces directly engaged in conflict from Afghanistan.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/afghanistan-france-troops/index.html

The complicity of Algeria in helping West in fighting 'War on terror' in Northern Mali is the same complicity with which Pakistani Govt helped USA in launching its war on Afghanistan. What was the catch ? Billions of 'Aid' in US Dollars which then President Musharraf admitted later on. So how Algeria has benefited is something we might find out later InshA'Allah as the truth cannot be kept hidden for a long time.

Right now, if I were an energy company thinking of prospecting in Algeria, I might choose to wait a little longer to make my mind up.

Right now If you were a Western Corporate Company that is interested in working in Africa and Middle East, would be the first one to support Western regimes like French in order to have free access, without any limitation by bribing the corrupt govts or by overthrowing loyal govts and installing corrupt govts because other wise you will not be able to exploit the resources on your own terms. That was why Gaddafi did not let the West exploit natural resources of Libya, rather he dictated them on his own terms and therefore NATO attack was even backed by the Western Corporate world as the Western Media is their creation in whom they have invested heavily.

Libya: So it was all about oil after all!!

http://rt.com/news/libya-all-about-oil-818/

The Western Media every now an then tries to demonize true Mujahideen by linking them to Al Qaeda proxies or by demonizing Iran or how they did Gaddafi or how they did to Taliban.

Another important thing to mention is that the Amena Gas plant was a joint venture of local Algerian company and British Petroleum (BP).

 

[syed_z]

Salam,

I have a couple of questions about your blog.
Firstly, you said that:



You also suggested that their movement didn't originally aim to introduce shariah law. In that case, how would you characterise the type of government they wanted to establish, and what indication do you have that they would introduce shariah law if they achieved their aim to liberate Azawad?

Secondly are you planning to use any sources from regional media?

Wa Alaikum Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatahu brother

First of all Shukran/Shukria for taking the time to read and response.

Yes i suggested that the purpose of their revolt was never for Shariah. Because the Tuaregs have not been fighting for Shariah. They have been fighting for the rights that have been denied to them for decades by Bamako regime.

The only thing i suggest is that we can assume they would implement Islamic Law or at least have no problem with Islamic law because they themselves are all Muslims. I would also suggest you check the facts and figures of Mali to confirm that majority of North Mali, rather entire North is Muslim.

However if you read articles published by BBC and Al Jazeera etc, you will notice them referring to MNLA as a 'secular Tuareg rebel group' and Ansaar Dine as 'Islamists". As if MNLA are not Muslims. Or as if Ansaar Dine is the only one that knows about how to implement Islam.

One thing you have noticed is that I have relied on Western Media sources such as Al Jazeera, BBC and CNN mainly, because they have been reporting extensively on this situation. They usually tend to focus more on a particular region when their Armies are about to attack that region. Just like Afghanistan was all over the news before 9/11 happened and they all went in together.

Therefore what I have done is come across articles from their websites with which I was able to 'read between the lines' as to what the Western Military with their Muslim allies is up to next because we Muslims Al Hamdu Lillah have learned a lot from our mistakes after 9/11. Unfortunately majority still choose to be deceived by them or their allies among us.

Other than the Western sources a Muslim named Ahmed Rajab is a Middle East and Africa analyst. He is also Managing Director of Universal TV and a columnist for Raia Mwema, Tanzania’s authoritative weekly. He says exactly the same what I have posted above so please read his article.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=6106


Another Non Western source suggests What do they really mean when they say that they are opposed to Shariah, meaning they are opposed to the Harsh form of Shariah ruthlessly imposed by Ansar Dine and with the group's connection with terrorists and criminals in the Sahel Region....

The Liberation Movement of Azawad said it would not negotiate with Ansar al Din unless they "abandoned terrorist groups and smuggling gangs and explicitly condemned them for their acts of terrorism and criminality, including abductions, destruction of archaeological sites, and application of Sharia law against the local population", Ag Sherif said on October 20th.

"The Movement today finds itself in an awkward position," Mali affairs reporter Mohamed Ag Ahmadou noted. "It is very hostile to terrorist movements that expelled them from the territory of Azawad, but also lacks understanding by the international community of its demands." "This ultimately constitutes a threat to the future of both Azawad refugees and residents of the North," Ag Ahmadou said.


http://magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2012/10/30/feature-02


the Rest Allah (swt) knows best.

 

[Independent]

I personally believe that the matter of Kurds is completely different from those of the Tuaregs.

My apologies, i think I just confused things by mentioning the Kurds. I made the comparison simply because they are another people whose historical territory has been carved up by modern states boundaries. In fact they are the largest single ethnic group without their own state in the world today - approx. 38 mill Kurds compared to 1.2 mill Tuaregs. That’s more than most countries.

Just like the Tuaregs, this has caused them to come into conflict with all the neighbouring states which have Kurdish populations, especially Turkey. However, this thread isn’t about Kurds so I won’t argue about the rights and wrongs of their actions.

So we can easily assume that the natural resources will not be so easily exploited by Western regimes like Frances by installing pro Western regimes in African countries, if genuine freedom movements were to become successful.

I think you are very good to distinguish between the Tuareg groups from Ansar Dine and the hardline Muslim groups. However, I don’t agree with much of what you say with regard to the resource issue (although I know it’s a popular point of view).

It’s a statement of the obvious to say that a western state with energy interests will want a friendly government with open markets in a resource-rich country. But ‘friendly’ doesn’t have to mean ‘controlled’. Any attempt to actually control a country by invasion (as is often suggested) is hugely expensive and very risky. Frankly, if that really was the motive behind all the actions attributed to it, why can't I think of one in a Muslim context that actually delivered enhanced energy access any time in the last 30 years? Surely the repeated lesson is that the costs exceed all posssible benefit.

The complicity of Algeria in helping West in fighting 'War on terror' in Northern Mali is the same complicity with which Pakistani Govt helped USA in launching its war on Afghanistan

Algeria and Niger are already doing well out of energy – especially Algeria. If Algeria is truly playing a double game by secretly encouraging hardline Al Qaeda linked groups, then it isn’t working very well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21186272

I also found this report from 2011 (before the crisis) which shows how the main thing holding up development of Malian resources was those self-same groups such as AQIM:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/mali-algeria-oil-idAFL5E7LQ3DA20111026

And also this:

http://thinksecurityafrica.org/oilgas/oil-and-gas-in-mali/

Why would Algeria risk so much to create an obstacle to its own energy interests? Simply in order to get funding to destroy them again? Even Machiavelli might struggle to work that one out.

 

[syed_z]

Any attempt to actually control a country by invasion (as is often suggested) is hugely expensive and very risky. Frankly, if that really was the motive behind all the actions attributed to it, why can't I think of one in a Muslim context that actually delivered enhanced energy access any time in the last 30 years? Surely the repeated lesson is that the costs exceed all posssible benefit.

Good to read you comments, thanks.

I believe if Invasion by the Western regimes, either directly by themselves or through the help of proxies, was really a waste of time and costly to the extent that the benefits are outweighed by the losses then I don't think that they would attack and occupy Iraq, Libya, Syria (is next), Afghanistan etc. Not to forget the drone wars taking place in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. The NATO bases around the world and USA has more than 1200 bases.

Now Mali and probably Nigeria is also on the list because Boko Haram terrorist activities are similar to Al Qaeda's and that is a major concern for the West.

So this military adventurism might be really paying off.

Also the political leaders in the West follow the ideology of Zionism and are firm supporters of Zionist Israel. From the perspective of Islam, many Ulema have expressed this in their writings especially in the past 60 years that Western regimes interference in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia is to contain the Muslim world and to pave the way for Israel to become the leader in the region i.e. Greater Israel. So wealth I believe is just part of the whole.

This attitude of the West dates back to the crusades, even at that time wealth was also a factor amongst many factors in attacking Muslim Lands.

If Algeria is truly playing a double game by secretly encouraging hardline Al Qaeda linked groups, then it isn’t working very well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21186272

I believe that the article you posted pretty much answers your concern as to if Algeria would really suffer in case they orchestrated the attack by using its proxies Al Qaeda in the Maghrib

Some point out that most foreign companies stayed in Algeria throughout the civil war, which killed tens of thousands of people.

"The Algerian authorities have received assurances that firms and foreign employees will not leave Algeria," said Energy Minister Youcef Yousfi.


Former Sonatrach boss Abdelmajid Attar has told Algeria's Le Soir's newspaper that BP and Statoil - which evacuated their foreign staff after the siege - risked huge financial losses if they disinvested from In Amenas.

"I do not think these companies can afford a permanent withdrawal after a significant investment corresponding to almost half of their investments in Algeria," he said.

..So the article gives us the other side of the picture as well as to if Algeria would really be damaging its interest by letting the attack happen, which shows its extremely minimal.

Another thing very important to notice is that AQIM's demands are not related in any way to Algerias government or Algerias foreign policy or its relations with the West.

Rather their demands were related to Mali....so in that case we see that Algeria has actually nothing to loose really because the Western Media aired the hostage crises and continuously mentioned conflict in North Mali and used the words like "North Mali Islamists" "Tuareg Islamists" .... therefore they were very careful not to give the bad image to Algeria's government or its territory.

However just to remind you, I have mentioned this throughout my main post and firmly believe that Algeria is not acting alone, rather they are doing all of the following at the Behest of Western regimes who have their long term interests in the region.

 

[Independent]

Former Sonatrach boss Abdelmajid Attar has told Algeria's Le Soir's newspaper that BP and Statoil - which evacuated their foreign staff after the siege - risked huge financial losses if they disinvested from In Amenas.

Focussing purely on the energy argument: these are long term investments. Crucially, all the risk comes up front - during the prospecting and drilling phase. Once the installation is built then the financial equation reverses and it becomes logical to try and keep it going. Nevertheless, if the situation becomes serious enough (as happened in Iraq) then it will be shut down or even destroyed no matter how many times they say otherwise.

Therefore, political stability is an indispensable factor when making the initial commitment and this now looks uncertain for northwest Africa. Mali, Niger and especially Nigeria (a majority Christian state) already had very good relations with the west. There was little to gain and much to lose by trying to install an even more friendly regime.

Even in the most often-quoted examples of this energy/invasion strategy - Iraq and Afghanistan - in neither case has it led to an improved situation for energy exploitation. Iraq pumps less oil than it did under Hussein and in Afghanistan the fabled pipeline never got off the drawing board. On top of that you have to factor in the cost of the military option which wipes out all possible benefit. It just doesn't work, there are no successes to point to.

Any adviser proposing such a strategy for the sake of energy exploitation would have an impossible case to make.

 

[syed_z]

Therefore, political stability is an indispensable factor when making the initial commitment and this now looks uncertain for northwest Africa. Mali, Niger and especially Nigeria (a majority Christian state) already had very good relations with the west. There was little to gain and much to lose by trying to install an even more friendly regime.

Thanks for your comments again.

Political instability is not the issue here, it is to keep a Pro Western Regime intact in its place and made sure that it is not overthrown by Tuareg revolutionaries.

When I spoke about Mali i never spoke that Mali's govt was a problem for France or West. Mali's rebellion is what scares them and I refer you to read my original post once again.

Btw Nigeria is not a majority Christian, it is almost half you can say. The other half is Muslim. The reason I mentioned Nigeria was not about resources, they want to get access to. But to extend 'War on terror' to Nigeria is by using Boko Haram to divide Muslims and Christians who might get united which is detrimental for the Western Interests in Africa. Keep them divided and use the Christians against Muslims is what benefits NATO.

Iraq pumps less oil than it did under Hussein

Can you please prove that for me ?

Because a Pro Western Kurdish govt in the North has access to 3 oil well fields and the South Shia Nur ul Malikis regime installed by West has access to 9 oil fields, the Sunnis of Iraq are useless because they have no oil fields and thats why they are not supported and taken good care of as Shias and Kurds are. So All of them are pumping and exporting. .... rather I would suggest that under Hussein Iraq was pumping less oil because of the enormous sanctions put on by the Western Regimes which took lives of millions of innocent Muslims.

Afghanistan the fabled pipeline never got off the drawing board.

Afghanistan's war was not because of resources only, rather it was to put an end to the revolution which Osama bin Laden wanted to bring by urging Muslims around the world to push their govts to force the West to withdraw forces from their countries particularly GCC. This is what made the international Media Demonize Taliban for sheltering Osama (btw whose group was never called Al Qaeda).


I guess this thread is for Mali, so lets discuss Mali. So like i mentioned previously capturing or maintain control over wealth and resources is just part of the overall purpose. There are several other factors involved as well and they I believe are much more important for the West. A good example is US creation of Africom to fight "Terrorism in Africa."

 

[tearose]

Yes i suggested that the purpose of their revolt was never for Shariah. Because the Tuaregs have not been fighting for Shariah. They have been fighting for the rights that have been denied to them for decades by Bamako regime.
The only thing i suggest is that we can assume they would implement Islamic Law or at least have no problem with Islamic law because they themselves are all Muslims. I would also suggest you check the facts and figures of Mali to confirm that majority of North Mali, rather entire North is Muslim.

As-salamu 3laikum,
Yes I knew Mali was majority Muslim, and I would make a similar assumption. However, you made the distinction between the splinter group and the original movement, in a way that suggested to me there is more at stake than just differing methods. I'm trying to get a sense of what the distinction you are making implies and what point you are trying to emphasize by making this distinction. I also would like to know what you mean by 'rights'. Which rights?
This situation is difficult to understand because there seems to be a lot of commentary and very few direct quotes from anybody in Mali.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I hope more forum members will contribute to this discussion.
p.s. I am a sister

 

[tearose]

The good news we have is that Islamic Movement of Azawad lead by Alghabass Ag Intalla, who represented Ansar Dine at the Burkina Faso meeting, has decided to split from Ansar Dine

So, what is the relationship between the Islamic Movement of Azawad and the MNLA?

Also, you said that there was criticism of the destruction of shrines and other sites from Western media and UNESCO. I lived in North Africa and what I have heard and seen about those shrines is worrying. Is your argument that people should allow those practices just because they want to avoid Western criticism? The West also criticised the destruction of Buddhist statues by the Taliban - so where do you draw the line? Please note I am not making any claims about particular groups as I do not have enough knowledge about the situation. I am just questioning this principle and trying to clarify some of the points you made.

 

[Independent]

Political instability is not the issue here, it is to keep a Pro Western Regime intact in its place and made sure that it is not overthrown by Tuareg revolutionaries.

Do we agree then that the objective of the French intervention, together with the non-Arab sub-Saharan states, is more or less as publicly stated - which is to restore and protect the previous democratic government of Mali and keep Mali as a single intact country? (This could still be compatible with your further views about the desire of the west to have friendly regimes across the region.)

This unity was not especially in danger until the fall of Gadaffi and the resulting influx of new weapons/fighters changed the balance of power and precipitated the Malian military coup. Therefore the west did not secretly encourage the invasions of either the Tuaregs or the Muslim hardliner groups because this brought them no benefit. Rather, it threatened to destroy an existing pro-western regime.

The motives for the Tuareg revolt are clear enough - in the weakness of the Malian regime they saw a chance for another rebellion. In the past they have explicitly fought for outright independence, even if they seem to have softened that demand in the peace negotiations. I suspect that they are pragmatists, and they are going for as much as they think they can get at any given point.

The hardest motives to work out are for the hardliner groups including AQIM. You suggest they are actually the instruments of the DRS (Algeria's intelligence agency). It wouldn't be surprising if the DRS had undercover agents within AQIM - that would be part of the job, wouldn't it? It's also possible to imagine this could lead them into some very grey areas (as counter espionage often does). But from what I've read, I don't see how anyone can definitively say AQIM is simply an Algerian proxy. For example, there is very strong evidence that the DRS was embarrassed by the Armenas gas field attack.

At the end of the day, who knows? We can only judge by the outcomes. And as I have argued, the invasion of Mali and the hostage crisis in Armenas do not benefit Algeria or the west - whereas they do benefit the hardliners. (At least, they did up to the point when the French intervened and recaptured northern Mali).

Can you please prove that for me ?

I'm making a comparison with Iraqi production before both Gulf wars. My point is that, the two military interventions led to a great reduction in Iraqi production which is only now, all this time later, coming back to previous levels. Ironically this also means that Iraq has conserved its supplies very well, so it is in a position to become the world's largest producer one day, if the luck is with them.

This quote comes from the following link: 'Iraq’s current oil production is 2.75 million bpd, the first time it has reached that level in 20 years,'

(http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/11/166344.html)

This gives a graph showing further back, but not the last few years. Production levels have varied wildly during the various crises, which again shows how war and political instability are disastrous for the oil supply and the world economy:

(http://seekingalpha.com/article/193859-will-iraq-s-oil-production-increase)

Btw Nigeria is not a majority Christian, it is almost half you can say

I stand corrected, it is indeed roughly 50/50.

 

[syed_z]

[FONT=&quot]Wa Alaikum Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi....I opologize , Im sorry I didn't notice you were a sister....

what you mean by 'rights'. Which rights?
This situation is difficult to understand because there seems to be a lot of commentary and very few direct quotes from anybody in Mali.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I hope more forum members will contribute to this discussion.
p.s. I am a sister

I had quoted this in the original post. Please do read and click on the links to understand it better and thoroughly the whole situation.

"The Tuareg feel like the outsiders of the national economy, completely excluded from the economic resources in many regions," says Salma Belaala, a professor at Warwick University in England who studies jihad in the Sahel.

Also the Tuareg Brothers have rebelled against Bamako's regime since 1990s , at least 4 times I believe and they have not revolted without any reason. I suggest you read about the Tuareg rebellion, do some research and InshA'Allah that will help you understand if they were really discriminated against or no.

Also Another thing important to point out is the Western Backed Bamako Regimes extra judicial killings of the ethnic Arab and Tuaregs in the North every now and then to make them submit to their authority. This is something UN has recently admitted once again http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21303447


and in my original post the list of links I have posted please do go through them to read that the Army's systemic killings since 1960s was also one of the reasons why they had rebelled in addition to the oppression and loss of economic rights.

So, what is the relationship between the Islamic Movement of Azawad and the MNLA?

The relationship of the Tuareg groups fighting in the North of Mali is to fight for their rights as equal citizens of a nation. Once again I refer you to my original post why Islamic Movement of Azawad was formed. Even though they had stood should to shoulder with Ansar Dine thinking they truly fighting in the way of Allah (swt), but their Khariji mentality made them separate from the main group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21180766

Also, you said that there was criticism of the destruction of shrines and other sites from Western media and UNESCO. I lived in North Africa and what I have heard and seen about those shrines is worrying. Is your argument that people should allow those practices just because they want to avoid Western criticism?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Its not about Western Criticism, they will criticize whenever they get a chance to regardless.

But the real problem is with us Muslims, our ignorant actions give them a chance to point a finger at us every now an then and its high time we should separate ourselves from the black sheeps from among ourselves and dissociate ourselves from their activities and the worst we can do is take sides with them because of their claims that they are 'Mujahideen.'

I am not saying to allow those practices, thats a theological discussion and I do not want to do that here. If you would like to open up a thread and discuss it then InshA'Allah I can be part of the discussion. The matter right now is not about graves. Its much more bigger than a few graves!

"Its about Ansar Dine, its leader who is an opportunist, who is linked to AQIM which used to be GSPC in Algeria, which has been known to be infiltrated by Algerian Intelligence who is known to kill innocent civilians, whom the West uses in collaboration with states like Algeria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia as an excuse to launch wars in the Muslim world against the true Mujahideen and freedom fighters whenever they commit acts such as killing innocent civilians in the name of Jihad."........this is a bigger picture of the whole issue..... as a Muslim we should seek understanding of the entire issue and not just take sides of a group just because they are digging and destroying graves believing them to be fighting Shirk and Bidah.

We had a person who emerged from the land of Najd not very long ago, in the 18th century, picked up arms against the Islamic Caliph in Istanbul, in the name of 'fighting Bidah and Shirk' which people like House of Saud exploited for their own benefit, which the British gladly supported (British Agent Lawrence of Arabia) and guess what?..... today we have no Caliphate ....... So in the name of fighting Bidah and Shirk we have already done a lot of damage to our freedom and lets not do any more.

Thanks for your comments.




[/FONT]

 

[syed_z]

The West also criticised the destruction of Buddhist statues by the Taliban - so where do you draw the line? Please note I am not making any claims about particular groups as I do not have enough knowledge about the situation. I am just questioning this principle and trying to clarify some of the points you made.

Thanks for asking this question sister. Very good question.

The statues are not graves of awliyah. Its not the same.

Also my question should actually answer your question.

Do you know how many Sufi Graves are in Afghanistan ? And guess how many did Taliban destroy ? Check and you'll be surprised.

I can give you an example of this great spiritual shaikh named Khwaja Abdullah Ansari http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwaja_'Abd_Allah_Ansari_shrine

His Mausoleum is still intact Al Hamdulillah..... this is just one example I have given you, check more you will find out yourself.

Another one, Taliban took over Kabul, never destroyed any Mausoleums http://www.worldarchitecturemap.org/buildings/mausoleum-of-timur-shah-durrani

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TOMB_OF_BABUR_IN_KABUL.jpg

The famous Baba Wali Shrine in Kandahar (from where Taliban movement actually started) is also intact and rather several Mujahideen even took care to preserve it in the past. http://www.touristspots.org/the-shrine-of-baba-wali-in-hazrat-afghanistan/

So the issue of Buddha Statues is different than a Sufi grave of a great spiritual shaikhs or Mujahideen leaders who fought against invaders and were luminaries of the Ummah.


Issue of Buddha Statues

Now the issue of Buddha statues was also a mistake made by Taliban government which the Western Media immediately recorded and began a world wide campaign to target Taliban Govt so that USA and allies can have a pretext to attack Afghanistan.



A Famous writer from Kabul Times named Suhail Shaheen has written the following in his article "Who are the Afghan Taliban?"

Mullah Omar hardly met non-Muslim foreign delegations, and was not watching television either. He was completely relying on his small clique of protégés. Moreover, some hard-line religious scholars who tried hard to influence him time and again, were — in part — responsible for some untimely and provocative decisions he made. They encouraged him, for instance, to:

- Share no power with former Mujahideen, and crack down on them;
- Reach no rapprochement with neighbors, particularly Russia and Iran;
- Ban the Afghan television broadcasts although Taliban had allowed Al-jazeera branch office to operate in Kabul;
- Ban women's education although they clandestinely allowed female students of the faculty of medicine to continue their education at the 400-bedded military hospital in Kabul;
- Destroy Buddha Statues. However, Mullah Omar had ordered in 1999 through a decree that the Buddha Statues should be protected as historical relics. Yet, in March 2001, he reversed his own decree;
- Slaughter 100 cows, for celebration, after the demolition of the Buddha Status.

Distorted information given to Mullah Omar by clandestine hands played a great role in his decisions whereas some groups misused his nominal consent to take critical measures of grave consequences.


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...agename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs/MAELayout



....So the Taliban actually made a lot dire mistakes which the leadership later on realized that they should not have because that caused their isolation in the international world, even by opponents of USA like Russia, China and Iran. There are many edicts and messages released by the Taliban in Afghanistan lately which tell that they have realized their mistakes that Western and USA regime exploited for their benefit to attack and occupy Afghanistan. Read the article above, it gives a brief understanding of the situation before Afghanistan was occuppied.

InshA'Allah will discuss further.

 

[syed_z]

Thanks for commenting.

Do we agree then that the objective of the French intervention, together with the non-Arab sub-Saharan states, is more or less as publicly stated - which is to restore and protect the previous democratic government of Mali and keep Mali as a single intact country? (This could still be compatible with your further views about the desire of the west to have friendly regimes across the region.)

No I agree to disagree again with u. French have no right to intervene in a country far away, like West in general has no right to intervene in ME.
Democratic govt is a government where all citizens are getting their equal rights and one category is not considered above another one. Just because Western Media was calling it a 'democratic govt of Mali' we don't consider a govt democratic till it is truly giving the tuareg brothers their rights.

How can this view be compatible when the West does not desire friendly regimes, it desires regimes which are oppressing people and who control the people on behalf of the West. Thats not compatible at all with what your saying.

For example, there is very strong evidence that the DRS was embarrassed by the Armenas gas field attack.

The embarrassment does not matter when one has future long term interests.

And as I have argued, the invasion of Mali and the hostage crisis in Armenas do not benefit Algeria or the west - whereas they do benefit the hardliners. (At least, they did up to the point when the French intervened and recaptured northern Mali).

The Western Media demonized them, the MNLA dissociated themselves from them, the local population of towns whom they captured did not like them, so in these circumstances I don't understand how did they benefit ?

This quote comes from the following link: 'Iraq’s current oil production is 2.75 million bpd, the first time it has reached that level in 20 years,'

(http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/11/166344.html)

In this case we can say USA and their allies by invading Iraq were doing exactly what they had planned, and which obviously about Chemical weapons of Saddam was a big lie and used as a false pretext. How can we even trust these deceiving Western regimes with other places of Africa like Mali, Somalia etc where they are intervening ?

I am sorry but I continue to disagree with you. Please I remind you my aim is not to post the above for the sake of arguments.

You can disagree and not believe and thats fine with me. But do not try to engage me in endless arguments because that is not the purpose of this thread.

I know you are not a Muslim and your probably from the West, and you don't believe what I have posted. Thats fine.... but my purpose of starting this thread was to inform Muslim brothers and sisters of the war of deception that is being played against this Ummah. I have done that and will continue to do that InshA'Allah.