Never will bestial Rajapakses reform – Shiranthee relies on bili pooja (sacrifice of life ritual ) to avert retribution

(Lanka-e-News- 10.Feb.2015, 11.55PM) The most moronic and demonic Rajapakse family which ruled the country most brutally and unlawfully ,who by now with the recent exposures after  the defeat of Mahinda Rajapakse at the recent elections ,has become a synonym for corruption and power craze is once again seeking satanic sacrifice rituals (bili pooja) to rescue themselves - not enough! plunging  the country for the last nine long years in a  total darkness while believing in   mythical , superstitious, unscientific and foolish  adventures like fly by night lovers at the expense of most precious national interests and country’s economy, according to reports reaching Lanka e news.

Of course , any person has the right to conduct himself/herself in whatever way , even to behave like a bullock tied to a cart. But that does not mean a family that killed humans like killing fowls and goats , and caused ruthless abductions be allowed to commit those crimes again on humans let alone  fowls and goat. This is precisely why Lanka e news decided to publish  this report .

The Rajapakse  family who practiced all the cardinal sins on earth while they were in power have pretended that those scams , swindles, ,corruption and  murders  were committed by accident . Under that pretense ,Shiranthee Rajapakse had visited Munneswaram Kovil , and stayed the whole of 6 th and 7 th to conduct chanting ceremonies  to rescue herself and family  from the inescapable retribution that has struck them with all the vengeance, and to change their direction from the road  to perdition they are inexorably heading. The name of the temple prelate who is conducting this pooja (religious offering) is Mahendran swamy. On the 13 th ,the last day of these ceremonies , a huge sacrifice is to be made, and all arrangements have been made towards this.

A A spokesman told Lanka e news over a hearty laugh that the poor innocent animals are earnestly awaiting the arrival of Mervyn Silva and his team  to save them , since it was Mervyn Silva who some time ago staged furious protests to ban animal sacrifices.

At the same time Shiranthee noticing her husband Mahinda Rajapakse  using a mega phone after the conclusion of the elections on the 8th ,and relating bogus tales moving from place to place to win the sympathy of others , had harbored the fear that her husband is now unhinged . She therefore in her desperation during the last several days had been cutting husband’s lime fruits well and thoroughly  at Carlton house to perform religious rituals . 

According to our inside information division  reports , in order that the bera (drum) sound of the seth shanthi  drummers won’t be  heard outside the hall  , the air conditioner in the hall was turned to the maximum speed . In any case the neighbors who heard the sounds  softly though, in the dead of night said , nobody was permitted to enter the residence of Rajapakse during that period.

It wont be out of place if we recall that Mahinda Rajapkse in keeping with his foolish obsession with black magic and charms had always depended on mythical and stupid supernatural phenomena ( which in fact finally led him to his doom) . Some time ago he was seen carrying a charmed ball in each hand and squeezing them fondly in  public unabashed. After losing the  elections however , he had not only thrown away  those balls he fondled so lovingly earlier on , but even berated those who gave him in the choicest filthy  language – the only language he knows best.

Namal Rajapakse too the synthetic lawyer who is as idiotic as his father following in latter’s footsteps , carried  charmed balls , but now , his balls too have disappeared . Unlike his father , being unmarried he  is rather shy about it , it is reported.

At all events , it is the determined  stance  of Lanka e news  that Shiranthee’s efforts and hopes to sacrifice a living animal on the 13 th, via that ritual to conceal her  sale of one ton gold illicitly ,should be halted .

---------------------------
by     (2015-02-11 00:20:10)

The free “Suddha Sinhala Padam” (Pure Sinhalese lessons) taught by the former president to the Attorney General’s Department

 Wednesday, 11 February 2015 

The Attorney General’s department which came directly under the supervision of the former president Mahinda Rajapaksa for first time in the history of Sri Lanka during his tenure is reported to bear severe pure singhalese abusive lashing out of the ex president at least once or twice a week.

Following the Attorney General’s department came under the purview of the ex. president after the 2010 presidential election the first instruction what they got is to imprison General Sarath Fonseka somehow or other. Meantime it was the Attorney Generals department which appeared as the chief prosecutor as well as an advocate during the Court Marshall against General Fonseka.

When the prosecution and the judgment directed by a single institution it would be prejudicial. When Sarath Fonseka’s lawyer persuaded that it would be a contradiction to the rule of natural justice during the proceedings in the Court Marshall the tribunal failed to heed and rejected the argument.

Later when the chairman of the Tangalle Pradeshiya Sabha, Sampath Pushpa Widanapathirana was taken into custody during the murder of the British national Kurram Sheikh, Mahinda as usual started to speak in pure Singhalese fowl language to the Attorney General’s department and exerted pressure to release the latter. Due to the international pressure the Attorney General requested the Chief Justice to appoint a three bench panel of judges the president treated the Attorney General as usual and tried to stop his duty.

During the Bharatha Luxhman murder case Mahinda Rajapaksa exerted severe pressure to the Attorney Generals department but due to a verbal statement incident recorded between the Presidents chief security officer Major Neville Silva and Duminda Silva a special inquiry has been summoned.

Even during the case of the former DIG Vas Gunawarna the ex president has told the Attorney Generals department to save the latter outside legal proceedings. However when a senior official in charge of the case has lead the case in a way it can be proven, Mahinda had also treated him in his usual filthy hospitality and has ruined his progress towards reaching a higher post.

However the former Attorney General Palitha Fernando was the person who mostly got insulted in filth from Mahinda Rajapaksa. Legal officials in the AG department, remembers him with gratitude for his maturity and patience for going through a severe mental pressure for bearing all the insults alone without showing his subordinates. The predecessor AG Chintha De Silva who got an early retirement without accepting the Chief Justice post is not due to his health condition but due to the bestial activities of the Mahinda.

However at present the Attorney General Department is carrying out its duties without hindrance and interference. They welcome the unexpected freedom they have got to express their views in the telephone. They are working hard to uphold the rule of law in Sri Lanka now.

Exposé: Dirty Harry ‘More Equal’ Than Tissa Before The Law

February 11, 2015

The newly installed Sri Lanka government has arrested the former Secretary General of the United National Party,(UNP) Tissa Attanayake for allegedly displaying a forged document claiming it to be real. However the government has so far failed to arrest Chairman of DCSL Sri Lanka Plc businessman Harry Jayawardena, also known as “dirty Harry‘, who was named in a Police “B” report by Sri Lanka Police’s Commercial Fraud Unit of the Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo Telegraph can reveal today.

Harry

Although the high profile businessman Harry Jayawardena was questioned by the Police and in spite of the Police having filed a ‘B’ report as far back as November 2013 Jayawardena was never arrested by the Police or the case proceeded with.

Businessman Harry Jayawardena has been named by the Sri Lanka Police’s Commercial Fraud Unit of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in connection with a complaint that a forged document was supplied to the Gibraltar based bank ‘SG Hambros’. The businessman, who has been in the news on a variety of subjects, is accused by the complainant of having forged a letter purporting it to have been issued by the Company Secretaries.

The Company Secretaries have denied ever issuing the letter and have confirmed this to the bank in question – and to the Police too. Although the B Report was filed on the 22nd of November 2013, the Police questioned Harry Jayawardena as late as the first week in January 2014 in the comfort of his own premises. Jayawardena’s answers were then put to the complainants who firmly stood by their original complaint as being bona fide. The Police are now expected to go ahead and file charges against Harry Jayawardena.

Read More

Presidential probe: Politicos, officials may lose civic rights

Champika after Mahinda’s scalp, not Basil’s

By Shamindra Ferdinando-February 10, 2015

The Special Presidential Commission (SPC) envisaged by the government to probe major cases of corruption would have the required authority to recommend that those found guilty be deprived of their civic rights, authoritative sources told The Island.

The proposed SPC could make the recommendation to Parliament, sources said, adding that the government was now in the process of working out the terms of reference. The bottom line was that those found guilty could lose their right to contest elections, sources said, pointing out that the recent conviction and sentencing of four years given to AIADMK General Secretary J. Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate wealth case immediately disqualified her from contesting elections for the next 10 years.

Asked whether the government had chosen members of the SPC, sources said that both sitting and retired judges could be appointed.

President Maithripala Sirisena announced the decision to establish the SPC at a public rally at Aralaganwila on Monday.

The announcement was made consequent to Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, making representations to the President, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministerial colleagues.

The proposed SPC would be on the lines of the Criminal Justice Commissions (CJCs) of 1972, sources said.

The then Premier Sirimavo Bandaranaike appointed two CJCs — one to probe the 1971 insurgency spearheaded by the JVP and the other to probe foreign exchange rackets.

Justice Minister Wijedasa Rajapakshe last week told The Island that special mechanism was required to deal with allegations pertaining to major cases of corruption. The minister emphasised that the SPC would probe really big cases. Those not wanting to lodge complaints with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption could come before the SPC, the minister said.

The SPC proceedings would be subjected to close scrutiny by a special committee comprising politicians and legal experts, the minister said.

Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka of the JHU on Monday declared that Mahinda Rajapaksa should be held responsible for all major cases of corruption during his presidency. Although the then Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa had been accused of corruption, it was the former President who should be held responsible for the situation. The minister was addressing a seminar at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI).

Ranawaka alleged that the former President had been responsible for corruption in key sectors. The minister strongly opposed Basil Rajapaksa and those around the former President being accused of corruption without charges being directed at Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Sri Lanka’s fiscal targets pressured by weak trend of revenues, Moody’s says

February 11, 2015

Sri Lanka’s new budget continues the fiscal consolidation, but there are risks that revenue targets are not met while higher expenditure may revive inflation in the island nation, Moody’s Investors Service said. 

The Moody’s report, on 11 February, highlighted the lack of future debt trajectory in the budget statement despite the country having a huge debt burden, much higher than its same-rated peers.

The new Sri Lankan government revised the previous government’s budget for 2015 on 29 January with lower fiscal deficit target and higher public expenditure.

The new President Maithripala Sirisena’s fiscal deficit target is 4.5% compared to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s 4.6%. Expenditures will increase 10.4% year-on-year in 2015 led by higher spending on healthcare, education, public sector salaries and pensions.

Moody’s said the new target could be at risk given the current trend of revenues. “Although revenues have been declining as a percentage of GDP since 2006 -- with the exception of a slight increase in 2011 -- the budget assumes they will rise 14.1% year-on-year, and will be 14.3% of GDP in 2015, from 14.4% of GDP estimated in 2014.”

A reduction in fuel prices, and lower taxes on essential food items will further add to the fiscal deficit, Moody’s said.

The rating agency also highlighted the downside risks to future investment stemming from higher taxes. “Budget proposals also impose additional levies on the Sri Lankan casino industry. These increases in taxes could deter future investment,” it said.

Revenue targets are contingent on a 25% ‘Super Gain Tax’ on corporations or individuals earning above LKR2000mn ($14.8mn), which is expected to generate LKR50bn ($370mn), or two-thirds of total collections, Moody’s noted.

Given that public sector employees make up 15% of the work force, the 47% increase in nominal wages will boost consumption, thus supporting growth, but the evolution of the country’s debt trajectory remains uncertain, Moody’s said.

“In 2014, Sri Lanka’s debt burden stood at 74.4% of GDP, marking a reduction from 78.3% the previous year, but still significantly above the median of 44.8% estimated for B-rated sovereigns. It is a key constraint on Sri Lanka’s credit rating.”

“The budget statement outlines contingent liabilities stemming from government-guaranteed debt, which would add 14.5% to the debt/GDP ratio. However, it is silent on the future debt trajectory, which was originally projected to moderate to 63% by 2017.” - International Business Times

We The Donkeys Or We The People?

By Hemantha Jayawardena -February 11, 2015 

Hemantha Jayawardena

As someone who detested the former regime and voted for a change on 8th January, my critical thoughts on the current regime, a month after the historic election.

Summary: some steps in the right direction (I refuse to say “genuine”, which is almost polar opposite to “politician”), BUT performance in general is inconsistent and not to my (very high!) expectations. I also sense that the people & civil society organizations have gone to sleep (again!) – we the people MUST demand our whole pound of flesh on good governance, justice to all & transparency as promised by the current regime, on the dates promised. If we the people go to sleep, there is every possibility that this regime will be no better than the former – if that happens, I would start using the phrase “we the donkeys” instead of “we the people” in the future!

Some specific things that I am disappointed about the current regime:

1. I am against the “election budget” that had a number of “election gundus”. Yes, I too benefit from price reductions, but as in the past, current regime can use these to hoodwink the people (donkeys?) to win the general election in 2 to 3 months. I hear some people (donkeys?) say “They have to win the next election, and without giving goodies, they can’t. People (donkeys?) expect it!”. Hopefully what “we the people” voted for a month ago was a significant improvement in the democratic institutions in the country and not handouts. If the majority thinks otherwise, I threaten to use the “donkey” word!
2. Where is the code of conduct for politicians? 22nd Jan is long past, despite a Minister (who I think has verbal diarrhea) saying that it is ready and no one would want to run for office when the regime presents its code of conduct for politicians.
3. I heard the premier saying something like “good things are being done even though late” in parliament – not good enough! Live up to what you promised on the dates you promised, unless you also think we are a nation of donkeys!
4. Different individuals / parties in the current regime are acting for their own political agendas. Yes, it is a coalition of different hues, but that is no excuse! People (not donkeys!) voted for significant improvements in good governance within a time period, and nothing short of that is acceptable, different hues of the coalition notwithstanding.
5. Disappointed about some of the appointments to high posts in government – NO to relatives / cronies / those who have a track record of singing hosannas to the rulers for personal benefit! And why are some real nut-heads from the past regime still in office? I must admit that there were good appointments too, but even one bad one is one too many. Like I said before, I had very high expectations from the present regime.
6. Retrospective laws to punish individuals are an absolute NO-NO even if they are meant to correct a past injustice. Yes, I am referring to “Mansion Tax” & “Hybrid Tax” – no, I don’t have a “mansion” or a “hybrid on order”. I object because it sets an extremely dangerous precedent and contrary to natural justice.
7. Too many “media shows” on wrongs of the former regime – yes, the guilty should be punished but I feel that these are/can be/ will be used to cover up the shortcomings on the current regime. File charges in court and let the law prevail – no need to hang anyone in the media (or “white vanned”).

In the interest of brevity, I would not elaborate on the good things so far by the current regime – I take those for granted as every citizen (not donkeys!) should.

To the current regime – if you do not live up to your promises on significant improvements in institutionalizing true democracy in Sri Lanka within the time frame you promised, you will be chased out too by the people soon – if not, you can thank the donkeys!

To the people – don’t force me to call you donkeys! Stay awake! Hold the current regime against the wall to deliver its promises on good governance.

To conclude and just to be absolutely clear, I do NOT wish to revert back to the former regime! For me, they were a terrorist group (just like the LTTE that they took all credit in defeating in a “humanitarian war”). The difference is that the former regime had official sanction (as a government elected by “we the donkeys”) while the LTTE did not. Never again to that regime! Never again to a similar regime!

Diplomacy: China creeps through government ears !

by Upul Joseph Fernando

( February 11, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) There’s a visible battle within the government over the Chinese Port City Project initiated by the previous government. The cause of this battle was the recent announcement to the media by the Health Minister and Cabinet Spokesman, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne that the Cabinet had decided to go ahead with the project which was the subject of a controversial issue raised by the then opposition. The very next day Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe contradicted the statement of the minister stating no such decision had been taken.

Diplomacy China Creeps Through Government Ears ! by Thavam Ratna

Smoking Putin Out of His Cave

Will Putin escalate if Washington arms Ukraine? Yes -- but it’s the only way to bring his covert war into the open, where it belongs.

BY JAMES JEFFREY-FEBRUARY 10, 2015

To arm or not to arm, that is the question.

With battles raging in eastern Ukraine, it should be abundantly clear that the euro-Atlantic community is involved in the most serious conflict since the end of the Cold War — less bloody, so far, but more dangerous than the Balkan wars. Absent a true breakthrough in the Angela Merkel-Francois Hollande effort to broker peace this week, the United States must decide whether to provide weapons systems to Ukraine.

This decision is fraught with danger; regardless of what the Obama administration decides to do, blood will be spilled. After leading thinkers from three think tanks, and Secretary of Defense nominee Ash Carter, advocated (in Carter’s case, hinted at) providing lethal weapons, various commentators typically skeptical of muscular foreign policy — includingJohn Mearsheimer and, in Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt — spoke out against such a step.  Like the advocates of further intervention, they have reasonable arguments: I agree with both of them that Ukraine should remain neutral, for example.

But I challenge the key argument they make, specifically Walt’s argument that Washington faces not a “deterrence” but a “spiraling” scenario generated by Vladimir Putin’s fears of Western encroachment — which thus makes deterrent action counterproductive. I know that argument well, because I, as acting national security advisor, agreed with it in August 2008, when Russian troops invaded Georgia. Not acting aggressively was the right choice then, but that is exactly why it is the wrong choice now.

Even if the lethal “defensive” weapons like anti-tank missiles that Ukraine’s government is calling for were shipped quickly (for once) to Kiev, the hard truth is that it really won’t make much of a difference on the ground. While better weapons would likely allow Ukrainian forces to do greater damage to insurgents and Russian paramilitary forces, Vladimir Putin is not likely to be dissuaded by body bags. American weapons would be a shot in the arm for the Ukrainian government, but that likely will not change the outcome of disguised Russian control of much of eastern Ukraine.

But something simpler and more powerful is at stake here:Providing arms would end Washington’s “not providing arms” policy, thereby establishing moral clarity as a first step in a long duel with Moscow. It is the established position of NATO, the European Union, and the United States that Ukraine is facing external aggression from Russia. Under those circumstances, to not provide arms is to undercut that position — to intimate that somehow the democratically elected government in Kiev is not fully legitimate, and is to blame for the conflict.

Critics of this policy argue that arming Kiev would only intensify Moscow’s reaction. That may be true, but it’s not entirely without utility. From a practical perspective, weapons shipments would give a battlefield edge to the Ukrainian Army and would force Putin into a less covert means of pursuing his aggression — which has both moral and diplomatic value.

Of course, U.S. arms deliveries are not cost free; they would generate diplomatic headaches by splitting Washington from most of Europe, and possibly even encourage intransigence in Kiev. Worries that shipping weapons would lead to a direct U.S.-Russian confrontation, however, are overblown: President Obama is not about to deliver munitions to Kiev that would put Moscow within shooting distance. But accidents happen in war, and thus this risk has to be managed. Still, the strongest theoretical argument against providing weapons to Ukraine is Walt’s “spiraling” worry — that, as Putin is not an aggressor but reacting defensively, it would only pour gasoline on the fire.

This is essentially the position the United States took in 2008 in resisting calls by Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to provide military support and weapons. The arguments against doing so made at that time are similar to those heard today: that Georgians were not spotless in triggering the conflict, that Putin was deeply committed, and that Russia possessed escalation dominance in the Caucasus (even more so than in Ukraine today). But the argument that prevailed above all in the National Security Council was that too strong a U.S. response would lock Putin’s Russia into a great power struggle — which we believed neither country really wanted.

In avoiding escalation by refusing to allow move troops or significant amounts of weapons into Georgia, however, we made a bet with history: If our restraint led to Moscow’s restraint, then a “win-win” relationship was possible. But if our restraint led to further Russian aggression — in particular in Ukraine given its proximity to NATO countries, size, resources, and location (and there was talk within the Bush administration that Kiev was next on Putin’s list) — then the jury was out on who we really were dealing with.

We lost that bet with history, and I think it’s pretty clear who we’re dealing with today. Putin has said that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical disaster of the century. But the biggest geopolitical question in European security in the last 25 years is not whether Russia accepts its loss in the Cold War — but whether it recognizes that, in modern Europe, losing the Cold War has no more impact on a state’s status and its people’s welfare than Germany losing World War II. The liberal international order whose apogee is found today in Europe rejects not only the world of Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo, but the world of 1914. And a Russia stuck in that worldview not only cannot participate in post-war European society, it actually threatens it.

It would be foolish after Georgia, after Crimea, and after what has transpired in eastern Ukraine to believe that Putin still doesn’t quite “get it” — that a bit more forbearance, or a little more understanding of how our mistakes fueled Russia’s resentment, will bring him to his senses. Rather, it is many in the West, for ideological or economic reasons, who don’t get it: Putin rejects a “win-win” liberal international order. It is he who plays by a different set of rules that harken back to 1914.

That is why the time has come to take risks, and why Barack Obama must introduce military force — however limited — into a dynamic that affects more than just Ukraine. Not because these steps will necessarily deter Vladimir Putin, but because it steels America and our allies, generates a new unity around the reality that is today’s Kremlin, and sends a clear signal to Moscow that we have bent and acquiesced for long enough. That the period of testing is over, and that Washington will resist, not submit.

YURIY DYACHYSHYN/AFP/Getty Images

Chapel Hill shooting: Outrage after family of three young Muslims shot dead on university campus 

Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha were all killed at the University of North Carolina campus

Shocking: A family of three young Muslims have been shot dead at their home - causing fury and sparking fears of community tension

By Anthony Bond-11 February 2015 

World News Talk

A family of three young Muslims have been shot dead at their home - causing fury and sparking fears of community tension.

Police officers responding to reports of gunshots in North Carolina, US, found the dead bodies of Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19.

Local news stations in Chapel Hill reported that all three victims - who lived east of the University of North Carolina campus - had been shot in the head shortly after 5pm last night.
Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, was arrested by detectives and has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder. He is being held at the Durham County Jail.

The deaths has resulted in angry messages on social media, with some claiming they had been executed and compared the murders to the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris.
A 46-year-old man, named by police as Craig Stephen Hicks, has been arrested on suspicion of three counts of first-degree murder

Adham Kassem wrote: “I want to see protests, I want to see news coverage, I want to see marches, I want the same outrage expressed in France.”

Zain Khan added: “RIP to the three Muslims murdered. I’d like to see the same public uproar as the CharlieHebdo aftermath.”

As reported by the Independent, Mr Barakat was thought to be a dental student at the University of North Carolina.

The basketball fan often used Twitter, and wrote recently: “It’s so freaking sad to hear people saying we should ‘kill Jews’ or ‘kill Palestinians’. As if that’s going to solve anything.”

A Facebook page in the memory of the three victims has now been created, called “Our Three Winners”.

Bank’s Services for Arms Dealers in Conflict with Its Own Policy

Soldiers patrolling Monrovia, Liberia, during the civil war in 2003. Photo: AP 

Ahmad Fouzi Hadj. Photo: LoSchermo.it (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IT)-Chinese-made guns that were seized en-route to Libya.

One dealer, Katex Mines, helped fuel Liberian rebel uprising using child soldiers that left hundreds of civilians dead and 2,000 injured 

By Will Fitzgibbon and Martha M. Hamilton

February 10, 2015, 6:00 am

It was a scene of incredible carnage.

In July 2003, a recently re-armed rebel group, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy, resumed its two-month siege of the capital, Monrovia, fighting to wrest control of the country from President Charles Taylor. Child soldiers were fighting on both sides, in an area filled with civilians.

Bank’s Services for Arms Dealers in Conflict With Its Own Policy by Thavam Ratna

Arab nations united in fury against Isis but divided on strategy

Jordan seeks revenge for pilot’s horrific death, with UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in agreement – but only a ground offensive can destroy Islamic State

Queen Rania of Jordan holds a picture of the murdered pilot Muadh al-Kasasbeh at a march against Isis in Amman. Photograph: Mohammad Abu Ghosh/Xinhua Press/Corbis

Kareem Shaheen in Beirut and Ian Black-Wednesday 11 February 2015

Islamic State (Isis) intended to terrorise its enemies when it filmed a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage and it clearly hoped to weaken the resolve of the Arab states that have joined the US-led global coalition fighting the jihadi group. But the sheer brutality of the execution, beamed round the world last week, seems instead to have galvanised Arab governments and Muslim religious authorities into more strident opposition to Isis – expressed in furious condemnation and high-profile but limited military moves.

Jordan, enraged by the immolation of Lieut Muadh al-Kasasbeh – and the threat that other pilots will meet the same grisly fate – has sent 20 fighter jets to bomb eastern Syria since last Thursday, its biggest air operation since the 1967 six-day war.

“Our hearts are bleeding with sadness and anger,” Queen Rania said on Monday. “My country, Jordan, is facing the crisis with patience, faith, and a determination to fight terrorism and exact retribution from those committing the most heinous and brutal atrocities of our time.”

The UAE, another Sunni Arab member of the coalition, dispatched a squadron of F-16 fighter jets to Jordan after suspending operations in the aftermath of Kasasbeh’s capture. Arab cooperation was necessary to put an end to the “monstrous actions” of “terrorist gangs” and protect moderation, it said. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, Barack Obama’s other Arab “partner nations”, also issued defiant statements of solidarity with the Hashemite kingdom. 

In Cairo, Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayyeb, the grand imam of al-Azhar, the world’s leading institution of Sunni learning, condemned Isis as “corrupters of the Earth”, who wage war against God and the prophet, and therefore deserve the scriptural punishment of death, crucifixion and the amputation of their limbs. Arab participation was seen as vital to the credibility of Obama’s goal of “degrading and destroying” Isis. But it has been more important politically than militarily. Of 2,000 or so air strikes carried out in Syria, less than 10% were by Arab air forces, though full statistics have never been published. 

Apart from an initial flourish of publicity, none advertised what their pilots were doing out of fear of retaliation or a backlash from jihadi sympathisers at home. “That has been part of the problem,” said one Amman-based western diplomat. “People didn’t even know Jordan was bombing Isis.” Revulsion, however understandable, does not appear to herald significant change to the conduct of the campaign. “Jordan’s anger is justified but in military terms they can’t add very much,” said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Centre in Dubai. 

“They are retaliating because of the brutal killing of their pilot but they only have 20 F-16s. And now that fixed targets and infrastructure have been hit, air operations are reaching the limit of their usefulness anyway. Air strikes depend heavily on human as well as electronic intelligence and there’s a huge shortage of accurate intelligence. After six months what has been achieved is very limited.”

Egypt, which no longer calls for Bashar al-Assad to go and is seeking to rebuild its regional influence, is preoccupied with the growing jihadi insurgency in Sinai and wants western help to fight that.

Alani and other analysts say hopes for turning the tide against Isis rest now not with air strikes but with a promised ground offensive in Iraq, specifically the recapture of Mosul, the dramatic fall of which last June shocked the world. Arab ground forces will not take part in that, though the Saudis are said to be signalling readiness to provide financial support.

Still, suspicions persist about the Shia-dominated government of Haider al-Abadi in Baghdad, with little discernible progress in efforts to enfranchise a Sunni community that is still smarting from its loss of power since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in the 2003 US-led invasion. Sunnis fear “liberation” at the hands of an Iraqi army backed by Shia militias – which work closely with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards – that stand accused of carrying out sectarian atrocities in areas recaptured from Isis.

So for all the horror of Kasasbeh’s execution, it does not look like a turning point. “I think the Jordanian response to the killing – appalling and grotesque as it was – cannot on its own be the answer,” said John Jenkins, recently retired as the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia and now Middle East director of the Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS). “Once vengeance is slaked we’re back to the underlying pathology: you fundamentally can’t use Shia militias to win a sectarianised battle for Sunni hearts and minds. And Iraq and Yemen in different ways represent exactly that. Meanwhile, Assad is laughing.”

The US commentator Aaron David Miller observed: “Tempting as it may be to see the killing as a transformative act, it probably won’t be. Other than additional military coordination with Jordan, we can expect only the continuation of the overall strategy to check Islamic State gains in Iraq and the plan for assisting Iraqi forces in retaking … Mosul and other areas. The air campaign will continue against Islamic State in Syria. Broader shifts in US policy as a result of the killing, such as deploying large numbers of ground forces, seem unlikely.”

US officials say ground forces will be needed to defeat Isis in both Iraq and Syria but insist those forces should consist of Iraqis and moderate Syrian rebels. The US has already begun training Iraqi forces, while the Syrian “train and equip” scheme is only scheduled to start in the spring.

Arab countries still have strong reservations about Obama’s overall Middle Eastern strategy, regional experts agree. “The horrific and provocative nature of Kasasbeh’s execution has momentarily muted criticism of the coalition and compelled Arab leaderships to flex some muscles to project steadfastness and placate their own constituencies,” said Emile Hokayem, an IISS analyst. “However, this tragedy is unlikely to decisively change the Arab countries’ mind about the campaign. Their disagreement about US strategy, their frustration with developments in Iraq and concerns about Iran remain strong.”