Tuesday, July 28, 2015

NUCLEAR : Southern Asia's Nuclear Powers

SOURCE:
http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/southern-asias-nuclear-powers/p36215?cid=nlc-dailybrief-daily_news_brief--link18-20150728&sp_mid=49195507&sp_rid=YmN2YXN1bmRocmFAaG90bWFpbC5jb20S1


Southern Asia's Nuclear Powers

Southern Asia's Nuclear Powers

Author: Eleanor Albert, Online Writer/Editor
March 6, 2015
Indian Defence

                Southern Asia's Nuclear Powers

Author: Eleanor Albert, Online Writer/Editor
March 6, 2015


Introduction
Southern Asia is home to three nuclear powers—China, India, and Pakistan—that continue to expand and modernize their arms programs. Motivated by the need to address perceived security threats, each is seeking to expand ballistic missile and cruise missile-based nuclear delivery systems. Such nuclear competition is dangerous given mounting mistrust and a dearth of diplomatic measures in place to reduce risk of confrontation. Pakistan’s chronic political instability, spotty nonproliferation record, and ongoing threats posed by militant forces have focused special concern on the safety of its nuclear materials.
What are China's nuclear capabilities?
China is seeking to soon achieve a nuclear triad (land, air, and sea-based nuclear delivery capabilities). Analysts estimate that China’s inventory is close to two hundred and fifty warheads. This includes short, intermediate, and long-range ballistic missiles. Some experts say China has as many as sixty long-range missiles with ranges between 4,350-9,320 miles. China's Central Military Commission oversees the country's nuclear weapons under the management (PDF) of the Second Artillery Force of the People’s Liberation Army.



Beijing first pursued atomic weapons after the Korean War (1950–1953) and conducted its first nuclear test in 1964. The U.S. nuclear threat during the 1950s Taiwan Crisis incentivized China's strategic nuclear program. Since China’s economic boom, Beijing has sought to modernize its nuclear forces to improve survivable second-strike capabilities, which would prevent the destruction of its entire arsenal in the event of a first-strike attack, securing the means for nuclear retaliation. Though historically driven by both U.S. and Soviet capabilities, the recent modernization of China's nuclear forces is primarily motivated (PDF) by existing and developing U.S. capabilities.





In addition to increasing the size of its arsenal, China is also altering the composition of its nuclear forces to build up more mobile systems. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s 2014 annual report (PDF) said that China’s nuclear forces would grow considerably over the next five years, with the introduction of road-mobile nuclear missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. Meanwhile, some experts stress that the pace of growth is slow. Chinese missile accuracy has also significantly improved (PDF), according to a U.S. Department of Defense report.



China is investing in space and counter-space programs ($11 billion in 2013), in part to counter advanced U.S. missile defense systems. Beijing's 2007 anti-satellite missile test sparked concern among officials and analysts in Washington; those worries resurfaced in 2014 when President Xi Jinping's called on China's air force "to speed up air and space integration", and when Beijing launched its third anti-missile test in July 2014.

 
What is China's nuclear doctrine?
 
 
Beijing says its national defense policy is purely defensive in nature. Since its first nuclear test, China declared a no first use (NFU) nuclear doctrine, meaning that in the event of a conflict or crisis, it will not resort to the first use of nuclear weapons. In a 2010 national defense white paper, China’s leadership said it adheres to a "self-defensive nuclear strategy, and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any other country."


Yet some experts believe that Beijing’s nuclear doctrine may be shifting. After the release of China’s 2013 defense white paper, James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank, voiced alarm about the omission of Beijing's NFU pledge. However, others say that China’s modernizing nuclear forces do not necessarily indicate a policy change, but rather a "broadening" of nuclear options. In April 2013, major general Yao Yunzhu, director of the Center on China-America Defense Relations at the Beijing-based Chinese Academy of Military Science, dismissed allegations of a possible change in Beijing's nuclear policy, saying "there is no sign that China is going to change a policy it has wisely adopted and persistently upheld for half a century."



Although originally a strong critic of the international nuclear order, Beijing has since joined international bodies as a nonproliferation advocate. China joined the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1998, acceded to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1992, and joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in 2004. Beijing signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996 but has not yet ratified it.



"In the foreseeable future, the Asian reliance on nuclear weapons will increase."—Ashley J. Tellis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace


 
What are India's nuclear capabilities?
 
India possesses a developed strategic nuclear program and currently fields nuclear-capable aircraft and ballistic missiles controlled by a civilian command structure, the Nuclear Command Authority. Delhi has an estimated stockpile of 90 to 110 warheads and is expanding its military nuclear capabilities. In 2011, Delhi spent approximately $4.9 billion (PDF) on nuclear weapons, up from $4.1 billion the previous year, according to Global Zero, a nongovernmental disarmament movement. Delhi has invested in a ballistic missile defense system, longer-range ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, MIRVs (PDF), and ground-, air-, and sea-launched cruise missiles, among other systems.


Experts point to China's 1964 explosion as the impetus for the launch of India's strategic nuclear program. Delhi's first nuclear fission device was tested in 1974 and was termed by the government a "peaceful nuclear explosion." India's test drew protest internationally and was condemned as a violation of the NPT, which had entered into force in 1970. The test spurred the creation of the NSG to prevent the misuse of technology from civilian nuclear energy cooperation for the development of weapons. Delhi then waited until May 1998 to conduct five nuclear explosions.


The United States and India negotiated a landmark civil nuclear deal beginning in 2005, which was later signed into U.S. law in 2008. Washington saw the deal as a practical way to overcome barriers to cooperation and also because it believed "it would be better to have India inside the international nonproliferation tent than outside," says CFR's Alyssa Ayres. Other nuclear energy powers also boost India's civilian program: Tokyo pledged to negotiate a nuclear energy pact, a deal with Australia allows the export of uranium to India, and Russia has assisted India for years on the construction of reactors, with new deals in the works between the two countries.


While India remains outside the NPT and the CTBT, its civilian nuclear facilities are now under IAEA safeguards and India has signed and ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol. The U.S.-India deal has provided India with incentive to harmonize its export control regimes to meet the standards of various international nonproliferation guidelines, including the NSG, the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, and the Wassenaar Arrangement.

 
What is India's nuclear doctrine?
Delhi, like Beijing, pledges a NFU policy, as articulated in India's 2003 nuclear doctrine. The doctrine emphasizes that its nuclear program is intended to establish a robust but credible minimum deterrent. Moreover, the doctrine explicitly states that India's response to an external nuclear attack on its territory or armed forces anywhere would be "massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage."


Security and political objectives motivate India's strategic nuclear program. Delhi places considerable political value in its program as a means to improve its status: "India's civilian leaders have seen the bomb as a political rather than military instrument," says Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Washington-based Stimson Center. Historical tensions and high levels of distrust among its neighbors also pushed India to develop nuclear weapons to strengthen national security.


India views Chinese nuclear expansion as a security threat, experts say, and as a result Delhi seeks capabilities to counter Beijing, including in the arena of space exploration. India's reading of Chinese nuclear activity is further colored by China's role in providing Pakistan with nuclear material and technology. Since coming to power in May 2014, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has upheld his pledge that his ruling party will adhere to India's NFU arms policy.







 
 
 
What are Pakistan's nuclear capabilities?
 
Experts estimate that Pakistan has 100 to 120 warheads and two types of delivery vehicles (PDF): aircraft and surface-to-surface missiles. The Strategic Plans Division (SPD), a secretariat of the National Command Authority, is the primary overseer of Pakistan's nuclear policy and arsenal, and its head is a three-star general from the Pakistan Army, which experts say suggests that the body is a de facto military structure. Despite Pakistan's economic struggles, obtaining and modernizing nuclear weapons has long been political and strategic tool to deter India's conventional power, especially after the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Today, Pakistan has, by some measures, the fastest growing nuclear program in the world, according to a 2014 Council Special Report by George Mason University's Gregory Koblentz. Pakistan has nearly tripled the number of warheads it had a decade ago. In comparison India's arsenal has increased by slightly more than 50 percent, and China's has grown marginally in that same period of time. Koblentz says that by 2020, Pakistan could have enough fissile material stockpiled to produce as many as two hundred nuclear weapons.


Analysts say Pakistan is now bolstering its arsenal with tactical, short-range missiles with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. Islamabad first tested the Haft, a short-range ballistic missile, in April 2011 and the Ra'ad, a short-range air launched cruise missile, in August 2007. Pakistani officials and regional experts cite what they call India's limited war doctrine (PDF) (also known as the Cold Start doctrine) as the driving force behind Pakistan's tactical battlefield missiles. The doctrine, whose existence Delhi denies, purportedly speeds up India's ability to mobilize conventional forces.


In 1965, Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto famously said that if India acquired a bomb, then "we will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own." The end of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War and the creation of Bangladesh precipitated the launch of Islamabad's nuclear bomb program; India's 1974 nuclear test only added more urgency.


In 1976, Bhutto put Abdul Qadeer Khan, a scientist who had worked at a nuclear research lab in the Netherlands, in control of Pakistan's uranium enrichment programs. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan expedited the militarization of its nuclear program with technology transfers from China and purchases of individual components and material from international suppliers. Following India's May 1998 nuclear tests, Pakistan responded with six explosions of its own a few weeks later.


Experts cite the nuclear tests as one of the driving forces behind the 1999 Kargil War, an armed conflict between India and Pakistan in the Kargil district of Kashmir that some say cast doubts about the effectiveness of strategic deterrence.


Khan confessed in 2004 that the multinational network he had developed to boost Pakistan’s program also sold sophisticated nuclear technology and material on the black market. Buyers included Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Pakistan’s leadership fiercely rejects any knowledge of Khan's operations, but there is debate over the extent of Khan's autonomy as well as reservations about whether his network has been disbanded.


Though detained and placed under virtual house arrest for five years, Khan was freed in 2009 when a high court ruled that he had not been involved in the sale of nuclear secrets. Khan is an international pariah but remains a national hero at home. Doubts in Washington about Pakistan's willingness or ability to curb proliferation contributed to the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal. Questions remain over whether Islamabad will play a role in the transfer nuclear capabilities to other countries, like Saudi Arabia.


"Nuclear competition in Southern Asia represents a classic conundrum of international relations: enormously high stakes, conflicting and entrenched interests, and at least in the near term, few realistic avenues for mitigating threats."—CFR's Daniel S. Markey
 
What is Pakistan's nuclear doctrine?
 
Pakistan is without an official nuclear doctrine, though national security authorities cite "restraint" and "responsibility" as pillars (PDF) of Islamabad's nuclear program. A report (PDF) by the U.S.-funded non-partisan Congressional Research Service says the Pakistani nuclear program's objectives include deterring "external aggression, counterforce strategies by securing strategic assets and threatening nuclear retaliation, and stabilizing strategic deterrence in South Asia." The Stimson Center’s Krepon adds, "Pakistan is a disadvantaged state that tries to compensate for weaknesses with a serious reliance on nuclear weapons." Pakistan's security establishment steadfastly backs its strategic nuclear program.


The adversarial nature of the Indo-Pakistani relationship is a central driver for Pakistani nuclear development. As the smaller state, Pakistan sees nuclear weapons as a means to offset India's military and economic advantages. In a collection of papers published by the California-based Naval Postgraduate College in June 2014, retired Brigadier General Naeem Salik, former director of arms control and disarmament affairs in Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, wrote that "Pakistan's security managers sought to achieve twin objectives (PDF) of deterring the threat of actual use of nuclear weapons by India while at the same time using its nuclear capability as an equalizer against India's conventional military."

 
What is the future of Southern Asia's nuclear competition?
Southern Asia's nuclear competition is seen by experts as fundamentally unstable (PDF). Koblentz has identified the region as the "most at risk of a breakdown in strategic stability due to an explosive mixture of unresolved territorial disputes, cross-border terrorism, and growing nuclear arsenals."


Domestic pressures add to the growing list of concerns about the region, especially in Pakistan, a country whose stability is challenged by militant groups. Despite repeated claims (PDF) by Pakistan that its nuclear facilities are secure, fears persist that a regional terrorist attack will escalate violence, prompting nuclear exchange, or that Pakistani-based or affiliated militants will acquire nuclear weapons. Experts warn of intensified nuclear risks, especially in an age in which non-state actors can develop cybersecurity (PDF) capabilities to exploit nuclear security.


There is no sign of nuclear modernization abating in China, India, or Pakistan. Expert Ashley J. Tellis writes that "in the foreseeable future, the Asian reliance (PDF) on nuclear weapons will increase." Meanwhile, nuclear powers have limited tools at their disposal to influence nuclear expansion in Asia, particularly since India and Pakistan are outside the NPT. Nuclear risk reduction measures are few and far between across the region.


"Nuclear competition in Southern Asia represents a classic conundrum of international relations: enormously high stakes, conflicting and entrenched interests, and at least in the near term, few realistic avenues for mitigating threats, much less addressing them in a more permanent way," says CFR's Daniel S. Markey.


This Backgrounder is part of a CFR project on the New Geopolitics of China, India, and Pakistan, supported in part by a generous grant from the MacArthur Foundation.

Additional Resources

Expert Ashley J. Tellis explores the nuclear capabilities in China, India, and Pakistan in his February 2015 testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Nuclear Notebook presents an interactive guide to the size of the world's nuclear arsenals over time.


This Stimson Center book investigates (PDF) the brewing dynamics and challenges to deterrence stability and escalation control in Southern Asia.
 
 
Retired USAF Lieutenant General Frank G. Klotz analyzes China's nuclear weapons program and the prospects for multilateral arms control in a Strategic Studies Quarterly article.


George Perkovich’s 2001 book India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation provides a comprehensive overview of India's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
 
Feroz Khan's 2012 book Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb chronicles the history of Pakistan's integrated strategic nuclear program.
 
 

More on this topic from CFR




















 

MARITIME : MALDIVES TO SELL ISLAND TO CHINA FOR NAVAL BASE

SOURCE:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/24/maldives-law-selling-foreigners-islands-stokes-delhis-fears-rising-chinese-role










CHINA HIDDEN STRATEGY WITH PAKISTAN ASSISTANCE
MALDIVES TO SELL ISLAND TO CHINA FOR NAVAL BASE
IS INDIA SLEEPING



Alarm bells are ringing in South Block after the Maldives Parliament on Wednesday amended the nation’s Constitution to allow foreign ownership of land.
 
 Friday 24 July 2015
 


Alarm bells are ringing in South Block after the Maldives Parliament on Wednesday amended the nation’s Constitution to allow foreign ownership of land. While there has been no formal word on the issue, The Indian Express has learnt that officials are “concerned” that the amendments will enable China to buy islands and build strategic assets in the Indian Ocean nation.
 


India’s relationship with the current government in Maldives has not been at its best after the arrest and imprisonment of former president Mohammad Nasheed. Four months ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi put off his Maldives visit following Nasheed’s detention.
 


The latest move comes after Indian firm GMR was ousted from the airport development project, with Chinese firms gaining a foothold in the nation. The amendments, which were passed by the 85-member Majlis, will allow foreigners who invest more than US$1bn to purchase land within the project site — at least 70 per cent of the area of the completed project must be reclaimed land. The Constitution previously prohibited foreign ownership of any part of Maldivian territory, but allowed leasing of land for up to 99 years. The amendments submitted on behalf of the Abdulla Yameen government by the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) was passed with 70 votes in favour and 14 against, with one MP absent.
 


Significantly, 10 MPs of the main Opposition — ex-president Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) — and nine MPs of the Jumhooree Party (JP) also voted in favour of the proposed changes. The PPM and its coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) control 48 seats in the House. Other Opposition MPs, however, expressed concern over “possible Chinese military expansion” in the Maldives. What has alarmed New Delhi, however, is the speed with which the amendments were passed. The Bill was submitted on Monday, debated and sent to a review committee at an extraordinary sitting on Tuesday night, and put to vote on Wednesday. The Bill was sent to the 11-member committee at around 12:30am – the panel reportedly approved the amendments at around 1:30am.
 


“The parliamentary panel reviewed and approved the Bill within just one hour… that raises alarm bells,” sources said. The legislative process in Maldives includes three main stages and usually takes weeks or months. But under the new rules, a Bill can be debated and passed into law on the same day. The Maldives government maintained that the new law was necessary to attract large-scale foreign investments and to launch “mega projects”, which Yameen said would “transform” the economy and reduce the reliance on tourism. The Bill is the second amendment proposed to the Maldives Constitution since it was ratified in 2008.
 


In June, MPs had passed the first amendment to set new age limits of 30-65 years for the presidency. New Delhi sees the latest development in the context of Maldives President Abdulla Yameen’s declared foreign policy shift to the East since last year. Chinese President Xi Jingping was the first head of state to visit the Maldives after Yameen assumed power. During the visit, the Maldives agreed to become a partner in China’s maritime silk route, a trade route from China’s Fujian province to the Mediterranean Sea via South Asia and East Africa.
 


China is also providing grants and loans to the Maldives to build a bridge between the capital and the airport. Chinese companies are involved in work on the airport, too, and have been handed islands for developing resorts. In January, the MDP had alleged the government was planning to award parts of south central Laamu Atoll to China for a military base. The Chinese embassy dismissed the allegations as “completely false.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           

Monday, July 27, 2015

OROP :Procrastination Most Mystifying






OROP - Procrastination Most Mystifying

DENYING OUR FORCES DUE THEY DESERVE

 
Thursday, 23 July 2015 | Deepak Sinha | in Oped
 
 
 
If the Government aims to divide the veteran community, it must remember that they have a lot to learn from their masters about communal carnages and insurgencies
 
 
It has been more than a month since the military veteran community commenced its symbolic relay hunger strike at the Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and at other towns across the country to protest against the delay in implementation of the one-rank-one-pension scheme that had earlier been accepted by the Government. That Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his advisors are unmoved by this unprecedented act on the part of those who have willingly made sacrifices for the security and integrity of this nation, tells us more about Mr Modi's wisdom, character and statesmanship, or lack thereof, despite all pretensions and posturing to the contrary. It is worth remembering that among those fighting for this cause are veterans of all wars that this country faced since independence.
 
 
Symbolism counts, especially in a poor and developing country like ours. Mr Modi knew about this, and was able to use it to a great extent on his way to the prime ministership. Unfortunately, he and his advisors failed to understand one simple truth, that symbolism without substance is hollow and a sham. It is seen through very quickly. That it has been an a grievous error of judgment on part of such an astute politician, is indeed surprising, given the fact that this is one war, he can never win. In fact, the bureaucracy has been fighting a rearguard battle ever since the 2009 judgement by the Supreme Court in the Major General SPS Veins (retired) and others case. It had then ruled that no defence personnel, senior in rank could get a lower pension than his junior, irrespective of the date of retirement, and that similarly placed officers of the same rank should be given the same pension irrespective of the date of retirement, in effect of the OROP.
 
 
That the BJP has nobody but itself to blame, is obvious as it paints itself as the villain of the piece haemorrhaging goodwill. That this occurred despite its Government having agreed to implement the directions of the court as late as February 17 this year, during the hearing on a contempt petition filed by Major General SPS Veins is in itself a mystery as well. In another twist to the ongoing saga, media reports have suggested that Additional Solicitor General, Ms Pinky Anand, recently informed the court that the “Centre would grant OROP to the petitioners in three to four days”. While one would like to believe that the Government has learnt its lessons and is now looking to cut its losses and clear up the whole mess, apprehensions continue to be expressed that the Government, in another move to delay the inevitable, may clear OROP scheme for Major Generals only, the petitioners in the case at point, and thereby attempt to divide the veteran community.
 
 
If this were to be the case, then it may be worth remembering that, while we have certainly picked up the fine art of dividing from our former masters, we still have a lot to learn from them about ruling, communal carnages and insurgencies. One can state with absolute certainty that Mr Modi's actions would then be worse than those of Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon, his Defence Minister, which resulted in the 1962 debacle. Not only can it lead to disharmony and finger pointing within the veteran community and provide support to those within the community, who believe that only strong action gets the Government to acquiesce, but worse, adversely impact serving personnel by creating friction within it. By turning the ethos of ‘service before self’, that has been the cornerstone of this Army's professional excellence through the years, on its head; the Government would make the position of the senior hierarchy morally untenable.
 
While veteran general officers affected by such a decision, will in all probability, could refuse to accept such a decision and can even approach the Supreme Court to modify its direction to include all affected personnel, thereby avoiding a spate of litigation that is bound to occur. However, serving officers will not have such a choice and will be confronted by a moral dilemma not of their making. The adverse impact of the divide between those eligible for OROP and those who would miss out is not difficult to foresee. In fact, it certainly is one of the major factors that impacts the functioning and performance of our central Armed Forces, where officers from the IPS rule the roost, while the rest are left to their own devices. The fact that they superannuate at 59 or 60 years of age, is a saving grace. Surely, even our politicians understand the implications of reducing our military to such a sorry state.
 
(The writer is a military veteran and consultant with the Obse
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

OROP :Why OROP in turmoil !!‏

SOURCE:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/veteransindia/_0pHbsPncTM








Confidential - Confidential

Dear All,

I had the privilege of attending an Ex- Servicemen rally in Bangalore right in front of  Town-hall, a highly visible & prominent location.

The point I wish to bring it to your kind notice is: 

Meet itself was well attended - with usual noisy speeches.

Highlight:
 
 
At the end of the meet one of my colleague ex-CDM officer & self were walking away from the venue, when a Sikh Brig rank officer
(who had made a short but good speech) stopped by us and told us in confidence - " I attended a similar ex-servicemen meet just 20 days ago at Amritsar and I gave a speech at that meet also. Shri Ar-n (current FM)
was passing thru the venue after a visit to Golden temple  and stopped by called me, as I was the tallest officer, but with no badges to show my former rank.

FM told me (the Sikh Brig), " you (army) people were responsible for my
defeat by One lakh votes, as you have a strength of 93,000 settled here"
 
 
I replied that that was not true, but FM said, "my inner sources have confirmed
that it is because of   ex-servicemen voting for Capt A. Singh (Congress party)
that I (FM) faced the worst embarrassment of  his political career. It is your turn 
to face music". and he drove away.

So political vengeance of an imp politicians at play here with OROP? I leave the final analysis to you all. 

IMP Note: The time was well past 12 noon, so Sikh officer, Brig rank could not have been carried away! and Being afternoon, I was well within my senses & fully alert mentally!

Pl keep  it confidential only as more time will be wasted in real OROP issues. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ISLAMIC TERRORISM : ISLAMIC TERRORISM MADE EASY











A Phenomenon Our Ruler
 Would  Not Recognize    

       






















             






               The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
               The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
               The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
               The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
               The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
               The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
               The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
               The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
               The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
               The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
               The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
               The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
               The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
               The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
               The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
               The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
               The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
               The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
               The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
               The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
               The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
               The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
               The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
               The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
               The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
               
                                                                                                                                                       
               The






   

              Think of it:
               
               Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
               Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
               Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
               Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
               Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
               Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem
               Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
               Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
               Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
               Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
               Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
               Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
               Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
               Christians living with Jews = No Problem
               Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
               Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
               Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
               Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
               Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
               
               Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
               Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
               Muslims living with Christians = Problem
               Muslims living with Jews = Problem
               Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
               Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
               Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
               Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
               MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
               

               **********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************

                              They're not happy in Gaza
               They're not happy in Egypt
               They're not happy in Libya
               They're not happy in Morocco
               They're not happy in Iran
               They're not happy in Iraq
               They're not happy in Yemen
               They're not happy in Afghanistan
               They're not happy in Pakistan
               They're not happy in Syria
               They're not happy in Lebanon
               They're not happy in Nigeria
               They're not happy in Kenya
               They're not happy in Sudan


               
               
******** So, Where Are They Happy? **********

               They're happy in Australia
               They're happy in England
               They're happy in Belgium
               They're happy in France
               They're happy in Italy
               They're happy in Germany
               They're happy in Sweden
               They're happy in the USA & Canada
               They're happy in Norway & India
               They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do
               they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves...


               THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!!


               And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the               countries they came from where they were unhappy.
               
               Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               ISIS : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
               
               
               
               And somehow OUR LEADERS  just can’t  figure out what's causing the problem....