Plot to drag Iraq into War
From the Independent
via Common Dreams
George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.
The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict.
The leaders discussed the prospects for a second resolution, but Mr Bush said: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway." He added that he had a date, 10 March, pencilled in for the start of military action. The war actually began on 20 March.
Mr Blair replied that he was "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam." But he also insisted that " a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs" .
"Blogs are the way the world learns geography."
--- Samarra Semanczyk (1984-)
When do you think the "secret memo" that Bush is the devil will come out?
I'm always amazed at the "secret memos" that get "leaked"... because they always keep documented proof of crazy discussion that can come back to haunt them.
This is kinda like the logic in movies how the bad guy always sits there and tells the person he's about to kill the entire plan, so that when that person gets away, they can foil it...
In the real world, the bad guys dont do that, and heads of state dont keep crazy documents that could only be used to incriminating purposes.
P.S. Not really back, just had a second to drop by... good to see you still plugging away H... and I guess even you DJEB :p
I agree with you g, it is almost beyond belief!
Bush must be fuming that these memo's are being leaked like this. Then again he doesn't need any official confirmation that he's a war crazed fool.
Either there are some incredibly stupid people around Blair, or someone who has a conscience.
Evidence proving that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks and used it as grounds to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.
It's certainly heartening to know that there are those with a conscience who are willing to leak these details.
Further proof if any were needed that both Bush and Blair were lying when they said they were willing to try peace first, they were never willing to do that.
The last recent leak of a secret memo was of Bush wanting to bomb innocent civilian journalists at Al-Jazerra (again) and of course the slimy Bush administration denied it, I'm sure hoping that it would stay secret. If these denials aren't just straight lies and plain wrong, I don't know what is.
It has been confirmed by lawyers in the case of the leaked Al-Jazerra bomb memo that the media reports are correct of the contents of that still secret memo.
The truth will always win.
Breaking news... (It doesn't mean that it took us by surprise though!)
The world is sooooo screwed ! Iran has been reported to the Security Council and has one month to cooperate with the weapons inspectors... It reminds me of another story though.
I smell a rat again. Iran has a month to comply with the resolution, and then what? Let me guess... The coalition will ask for a second resolution that will allow the use of force, etc etc...
We are sooooo F&*%$d!
May Gods and Demons, Allah and Buddha, help us!
Indeed, may all the Gods help us.
Yet - this is our world and we must help ourselves too!
Many people have come forth with evidence of governments gone astray. It is all over the place.
What I do not see/hear is a solution. That is what we dearly need - a solution - who has one?
How dose the citizenry stop the forces of domination?
It would seem that some revolution would be in order - but how. It would be wise not to cut off our nose to spite our face - if you know what I mean.
What ever happens at this point it appears to require a bitter pill. So all I am saying is if the pill must be bitter - it must work!
Who has a solution?
That memo has been discussed for a while in Britian, but not much has ever come of it.
Glad to see your still alive G :-) and greeting Djeb... whatever next ?
Either there are some incredibly stupid people around Blair, or someone who has a conscience.
Well I think we can assume the first but in regard to the memos it does appear that someone with a conscience has a hand in all these leaks.
When do you think the "secret memo" that Bush is the devil will come out? ...
Informal fallacy: diversionary humour. "This fallacy consists in injecting humour... into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to an opponent's criticism or counterargument." [Damer, T. Edward, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, p. 185]
expose911, you are totally off topic. Please don't come here just to advertise your website.
I dunno about any of that. but I do know that Air craft carriers were sent to the coast of New York Monday night 9/10 prior to 9/11. I know this from a very good source and the info was given by someone whose son was one sent out there.
I know a guy who once knew a guy who once had a son who saw this chick in a bar who...
Does anyone dare to actually be on topic here? Has no one read our comment editing policy?
plots to create war seems to be the topic.. 9/11 does seem to fit.. why is DJEB so against talking about the 9/11 or past plots?
they are relevant. more so with every document like this.
This is with regards to actual evidence involving the effort to create the Iraq war, not 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses.
As for 9/11, I have been very willing to talk about it on the relevant thread.
every war with Iraq is involved in conspiracies theories and they are all related to the right wing nut jobs running my country right now. it is very related. this document is more evidence of this conspiracy. the first iraq war, 9/11, afganistan, iraq2 and iran are all related. i can go further and relate all this to the contras.
it is all related to your country too.. the old empire.
"Documents From the US Espionage Den"
Firts off, the 9/11 "theories" are too weak to be accurately called theories. They are hypotheses.
Secondly, 9/11 and this story are related but only loosely. We could just as easily have someone ranting about Blair's poor domestic policies since the story is related to Blair. We are talking memos here; and this thread would be more producive if we would talk about them again instead of expressing a preoccupation with another topic.
Thirdly, I am not British.
my point is still valid. this is all related. your take on conspiracy hypotheses is laughable.
If it is laughable, I would love to hear why on the relevant thread.
Egyptian ferry sinks with 1300 on board
An Egyptian ferry carrying more than 1,300 people has sunk in the Red Sea, Egyptian maritime officials say. Lifeboats and bodies have been seen, the officials said.
The al-Salam Boccaccio 98 disappeared shortly after leaving the port of Duba in Saudi Arabia on Thursday evening, bound for Safaga in southern Egypt. The ship was last recorded to be 100km (62 miles) from Duba. Rescue vessels and helicopters are searching the area, but the weather is said to be poor.
Most of the passengers are said to be Egyptians working in Saudi Arabia but some are thought to be pilgrims returning from Mecca. The 6,650-tonne al-Salam Boccaccio 98 is owned by the Egyptian company, el-Salam Maritime Transport.
The head of administration at el-Salam Maritime Transport, Adel Shukri, said he was not aware of any SOS from the crew.
Source : BBC
There are no suspected links to Terrorism at the time of posting.
nothing but bad news..
when will it end?
and you have to wonder if this is at all necessary?
shouldn't we have the knowledge, technology and power to bring about real progressive change?
This makes me think of a modern "Titanic" disaster.
Shocking isnt it. I am still hearing of upto 1000 dead
And the motivation for Israel would be what, anon?
I make the challenge that you gave no response because you could not. I cast my glove in front of thee.
Your guide to global warming by Flamey McGassy
. Another great animation from Mark Fiore
Just about says it all really... a great piece of work as usual!
There is so much missinformation and/or confusion on this issue I am not sure what to think. For sure there is way too much politicing goin on.
Yes, it is obvious the temps are going up, still rather slowly, but going up.
Why? The earth has some pretty big cycles it goes through. We are coming out of the last ice age - warmer! The earth will head back into another one, if history is any measure.
What I find interesting is the statement that of the 700 or so scientists that sign on to the global warming alarm, with Gore, only about 3 are truly weather scientists. The VAST majority of the weather scientists say that the system is far too complex, there are too many interacting factors - and we do not really KNOW what it all means yet - especially in terms of man's part.
Now - I will say that when the new generation of weather satilites go up (soon) we will have much better data to go by. As for now the data is being averaged and modeled in ways that may not be accurate.
Just recently they discovered that green vagetation emits methane - most most potent greenhouse gas. That's a big piece to the puzzle - and they just found it!
What most people dont know, aren't told, is that too a great extent green house effect is VITAL to our existence on this planet. The weather people say as much as 98% of it is vital. If not for the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere we would freeze out at night, and boil out in the daytime. Think Mars! It has no greenhouse atomsphere.
It is hard to trust information - it is used by some and twisted by others. The earth is pretty old, and we only have a speck of information about it (data) the rest of our information is summised from observation. Dont get me wrong - that helps.
The way I see it - yes we need to stop some/most of our polluting - why - because we like to breath, eat clean food and drink clean water - no matter what the daliy temperatures are!
They say the Pres is not listening to the scientists - well maybe he IS listening to the "other" scientists!?
Time will tell, yet I am in favor of stacking the odds.
Look at the money trail, both sides of this issue are making a lot of it, thanks to politics as usual.
How many people remember that in the 70s it was global cooling, the coming ice age, that was the scare of the decade? Were they wrong about there data????
'missinformation and/or confusion on this issue'
not from the scientists.. the politics are quite typical.. the science is undeniable.
The Republican War on Science
Mooney writes that "the politicization of science presents a severe challenge to modern democratic governments, which depend on a creative tension between elected representatives...and unelected technocratic elites." He maintains that this trend "weakens and ultimately destroys this necessary relationship."
Gary, the capacity for global warming was known since 1896 with the work of Svante Arrhenius. However, there have, as with many sciences, been changes in understanding over the history of the discipline. There isn't the space to go into it here, but if you are really interested, I suggest reading The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Weart.
I have a lot more to say, but not on a day in which I much prepare for work. For now I'll just say the Mars has next to no atmosphere at all, so greenhouse gases don't help it much.
That's my suggestion, as well as others, Mars has none, we do "cause we need it!
There are some things that are just plain obvious, some are not.
Yes the temps seem to be going up - no doubt - still much to learn.
This guy makes a good case, is he lying? I dont know - but someone is being missled.:
OK, it is the OZONE Layer that keeps us from freezing at night and boiling during the day, the greenhouse gases are eroding that protection! We don't NEED greenhouse gases at all!
Global Warming is acutally far worse than we thought, and to be frank it is already too late. It has been projected that it will take 100 years to get everyone to lower their emissions to a safe level, by then the damage would be irrepairable.
Still, I'll be dead by then anyway.
"Mars' atmosphere is thin: the air pressure on the surface is only 750 pascals, about 0.75% of the average on Earth."
Lindzen? He is the one guy that any global warming denier is going to cling to. I read his very unconvincing piece in Time a number of years back.
Is he lying? He may well be. He knows what side his bread is buttered on: "he receives his funding from the fossil fuel industry." (Also see Weart, Spencer R., The Discovery of Global Warming, p. 177, which says, "his credibility was not helped when he accepted money as a consultant for fossil fuel groups".)
It should be quite obvious that there are very, very powerful interests that will benefit from muddying the waters with respect to global warming and those interests will pay quite a lot to spread the message they want to hear. If not for that fact, the chances of you ever having heard of Lindzen would be next to nil. Despite what he would like to believe, he is in the minority.
Finally on Lindzen, if I may be forgiven these well poisoning fallacy (hey, at least I told you I'm doing it): First "Richard Lindzen was the first I noted who forecast here that over the next 20 years, the climate is as likely to cool as warm, and said he would be prepared to bet on it. However, when challenged to a bet, it turns out that he expects odds of 50:1 in his favour, ie he will only bet on the chances of cooling being at the 2% level or higher, far short of his 50% claim. My quick and dirty estimate above based on the IPCC TAR suggests that they would put the probability at more like 10%, so his offer actually appears to affirm the IPCC position."
And second: "Dick Lindzen of MIT, also believes that no scientific study has yet demonstrated a conclusive link between smoking and lung cancer." Frankly, after hearing that, I do call in to question anything the man says.
Now, on the global cooling, without quoting chapters from Weart's book, I'll turn to a blog run by climate scientists: "The "panic" about cooling in the 1970's is an urban myth. In particular, the Science article from 1976 is totally misrepresented by Will. That article qualified its predictions by "in the absence of human perturbation of the climate system" as did many papers at the time. It is also telling that Richard Lindzen, a well known critic of other climate scientists, happens to agree with us on this. Writing for the Cato Institute, he says: "But the scientific community never took the issue [global cooling] to heart...""
On methane from plants, it is a part of nature. That is to say, unless plants have suddenly changed, the methane released by plants is part of a natural source of methane that, in the absense of human interference, would be in a steady state and not affect a change on climate.
On greenhouse gases being vital, yes, within a range of concentrations. Water is vital to human life, but it has killed those foolish enough to drink too much of it (though loss of electrolytes).
I can agree whole-heartedly on your closing statements. We do need clean air, clean water and clean food. If you can't get a lungful without inhaling manmade pollution and/or can't go down to your local lake of river and drink straight from it, you live in a degraded, polluted environment.
Anonymous, the ozonelayer is not what holds in heat. Don't take my word for it, look it up.
Sadr’s militia and US forces clash in heavy gun battle
Four Iraqis were killed in a heavy gunfight that broke out before dawn Thursday reportedly between the Mehdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr and US forces in Baghdad's Sadr City.
A US military spokesman said fighting began around 1:00 am (2200 GMT Wednesday) when the coalition forces came under attack during a raid in the poor, predominantly Shiite Baghdad district."The coalition forces conducted a raid in Sadr City to search for a known terrorist from Ansar al-Sunnah group," the spokesman said.
"Ater conducting the raid one of the helicopters of the coalition forces came under fire from some men on a nearby rooftop following which another helicopter of the coalition forces returned fire to eliminate the threat in which four individuals were killed."
He did not say whether the four were members of the Mehdi Army, though an interior ministry official said the fight was between US forces and the Mehdi Army.
The official added that a woman was killed in the fighting.
Sadr's militia and the US military have often clashed in the past, most dramatically in August 2004 when the fiery cleric waged a bloody rebellion in the Shiite holy city of Najaf in which hundreds of his men were killed.
Source : Here
I thibnk its rediculous they have the Mehdi army, how is this possible? We want democracy yet we leave militias like this in power, that is the problem, you can't be half in, these jokers should ahve to disarm otherwise they are just another form of tyrant.
I'm just guessing...but I think this website is a plant set up by the CIA to attract real terrorists and anyone else who is orientated that way, so that they can be bunched together on a computer and spyed on...
hahaha thank you . I have never been considered part of a 'conspiracy theory' before. Well if we work for the CIA then its about time they sent us a wage cheque.
Someone wrote the same thing on daily dissent a few months back and I will take this the same way as they did. It seems to be a common thing to call any site who doesnt agree with GWB.
Its a compliment to be considered important enough to be worthy of CIA attention. With respect I hope they have better things to do. I also imagine the 'terrorists' have far better sources of information than what is printed here.
The day the terrorists start using this site as a reference is the day you can be sure that the 'war on terror' has been won. To start we condem all terrorism on this site.
Thank you for the trip into Paranoia if you ever feel that we are trying to take over the planet by sending microwave beams through your monitor be sure to let us know.
DJEB ... comment of the week ? :-)
This site was one of the many set up by the aliens in order to feed us misinformation, propaganda and to help hide the ugly truth from us, that we are all slaves.
There is no war in Iraq, there isn't even an Iraq, its all just an illusion.
Great stuff David , Don't forget the stuff about the Royal family and George Bush all being lizard people please.
I really shouldnt be adding to the taking of my own post off topic but I have to admit this is funny !
Remember judgement is passed by our masters and if they want you they will call you
_H_, I never made it a secret that I work for the CIA (you just never asked)...
David, I never made it a secret that I am from LV-426 (you just never asked)...
I am sure I put those questions on the application form !
The second one I can remember clearly I put the question right in between
'Are you from LV-425 ?' and
'Are you from LV-427 ?'
I swear I did.
_H_, you did. David didn't.
Check the form. You'll see I was honest.
Yes, unfortunately the killing continues in "liberated Iraq". It'll be 3 years since that "mission accomplished" speech shortly as well.
Ok. Ok. Youve eased my paranoya.
What does Hamas want? : Open letter from leading Hamas politician
This is an open letter written by Muhammad Abu Tir, a Hamas politician and former militant. I neither endorse or refute this letter I am just printing it as found. What does Hamas want? Abu claims they are eager to engage with the West, if not Israel.
My message to the West—to America, to Europe, to everybody—is this:
Hamas wants peace. We hate bloodshed and killing. We don't want to fight. There is a verse in the Qur'an that says whoever kills one soul kills all souls. And whoever brings life to people brings life to a nation.
Our problem is with the Israeli occupation. Israelis are killing our children. The West has been oppressive, too. You are biased toward Israel. You support Israel. You are capable of telling Israel, "Enough." You are capable of telling Israel to withdraw. Why is the West concerned about the security of Israel and not concerned about our security?
Stop your support for Israel. Stop calling us terrorists. This policy creates a feeling of oppression. The feeling of oppression can lead to disaster. I don't want to reach that stage. If the United States were occupied, would the people put up with such a situation? In World War II, when the Japanese planes hit Pearl Harbor, America was not quiet. It reciprocated by hitting Japan with a nuclear bomb. Just be fair with us.
The European Union and America should cooperate with us. We have ways of creating understanding among our people. We are facilitators, helpers, aides. The presence of Hamas is a guarantee of safety and stability in the region. Any money that is given to us will be channeled to the correct path. It's better than giving your money to greedy people. The poor have never seen that money whatsoever; it goes only to the swollen bellies. We are honest people. Whatever money we receive, it will go to that purpose. We would use it for education, for social work, for establishing infrastructure, for health institutions, for poor people, for orphans. It would go to the lower levels of society.
Don't be afraid that we'll use the money to buy arms. We can always find arms on the black market. It is obvious that we have built our military infrastructure in that way. Our weapons are the only guarantee of our existence. If a proper Palestinian state were established, then all the militias would melt inside the Palestinian Army.
We are open to the world. But the PLO has negotiated with Israel for 30 years. And what did Israel do? It did not reciprocate. Shimon Peres has said that if Hamas gives up its arms, we will negotiate. They have said the same thing to the PLO before. Does Shimon Peres want another 30 years for us to negotiate with them? We would be happy to work under the Irish model. But is Israel prepared to respect our political wing? Is Israel ready for such a formula?
The West has nothing to fear from Hamas. We're not going to force people to do anything. We will not impose Sharia. Hamas is contained. Hamas deals only with the Israeli occupation. We are not Al Qaeda.
Source : Here
Please read our Comment Rules
if you wish to give us your view on this article.
i am always dubious about statements like these. whilst, at some level i am sympathetic with a few of the things said in this statement, it is difficult to see anything concrete coming out of this. there is no commitment to any concrete path of action. just more rhetoric..
Perhaps Hamas has seen the error of the previous agenda which has garnered them nothing but thinning ranks and the scorn of decent people around the world. Perhaps there may be a veiled threat underneath the rhetoric, but it would do no harm to work with them if they are truly committed to change.
I like the statement Hamas wants peace. We hate bloodshed and killing. We don't want to fight. There is a verse in the Qur'an that says whoever kills one soul kills all souls. And whoever brings life to people brings life to a nation.
That verse sums up what everyone out there needs to realize and obide by to keep the world at peace.
nice one mate. Great blog. I've been covering the Hazma story close up in the UK since 2003. Do check it out.
Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. and a christian blows up children in oklahoma whats your point ? , what has the fact they were Muslims got to do with it . they were terrorists , Osama bin laden Is not a Muslim cleric and has no authority to speak for Muslims as any Muslim will tell you , he can not order attacks , he can not claim to be doing so for islamic reasons as he has no Islamic authority
No Muslim outrage.
Statements by leading American Muslim organizations. Monday, September 17, 2001
Dozens of scholars of Islam issued a statement today, condemning the violent attacks of September 11th.
“We are grief-stricken at these horrifying events,” “the murder of innocents can never be justified and must not be tolerated.”
then of course you have the Statements by President Bush to distinguish between Islam as the faith of one billion people all over the world (including 6 million in the US) and the actions of the terrorists.which he notices should not be connected , you had Expressions of grief, sympathy, and prayer from the international Muslim community, in response to the tragedy of September 11th. Even Saddam Hussein strongly condemned the 9/11 attacks though I doubt you would have read that.There have been more Muslims killed by the terrorists than non Muslims by some considerable amount . your argument fails with its logic .
Some Americans are members of the klu klux clan and hate black people , should I say that America supports hatred of black people ?Muslims right around the world felt and showed outrage at the events of 9/11 , but you fail to tell me why the American president is wrong when he says that you should make no connection to Islam for Islam did not authorise an attack on America ,
a bunch of evil fanatics who have no right to speak for Muslims attacked America . why are you not complaining about the lack of Buddhist outrage ? or Hindu outrage ? Most importantly why are you not showing outrage for the murder of civilians by 'Christians' (using your logic) including the cold blooded murder of 18 Innocent Muslims including women and children by the CIA 2 weeks ago . I hear not your outrage ? do you simply apply double standards or did you just fail to mention your outrage at the CIA 'Christians' ?
As I say your argument is lacking in logic , why not say that all the hijackers were all men and you are disgusted that the Eskimo males have not said sorry yet.I will give you the opportunity to address ALL these questions directly ,but if you have failed to do so within 24 hours then I will consider your post to be uneducated hate speech and it will be deleted.
Note : your comment already breaks the site rules I am merely giving you the chance to explain to me what this has to do with the worlds 1 billion muslims and why you think people like Osama bin laden represent Muslims
You are lucky, anon. I was about to delete your undocumented (lying) hate speech intil I saw that _H_ replied to you.
My advice is don't break our posting policy like that when I'm on watch.
DJEB your correct this does break our policy and I would have had no question with you deleting such hate speech , I am merely curious as to how Anon would atttempt tp justify his/her hatred. These messages will be deleted within 24 hours unless anon replies with a much more sensible and educated view. Please do not hold back from deleting any twisted hate speach if we get any more by return
thanks for looking out for such facism.
here is some more outrage from muslims for you , hmmm I wonder how you missed it .
Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
MSANews, September 14, 2001, http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/200109/20010917.15.html;
Arabic original in al-Quds al-Arabi (London), September 14, 2001, p. 2, http://www.alquds.co.uk/Alquds/2001/09Sep/14%20Sep%20Fri/Quds02.pdf
Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.:
“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. ... [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. ... [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”
Statement of September 27, 2001. The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html
Full text of this fatwa in English and Arabic.
Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt:
“Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001
Abdel-Mo'tei Bayyoumi, al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy, Cairo, Egypt:
“There is no terrorism or a threat to civilians in jihad [religious struggle].”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20 - 26 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/552/p4fall3.htm
Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was “horrified” by the attack and expressed “condolences and sadness”:
“[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. ... [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 - 19 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/551/fo2.htm
Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of Shi‘i Muslim radicals in Lebanon, said he was “horrified” by these “barbaric ... crimes”:
“Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001
‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
“Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth.”
Statement of September 15, 2001, http://saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-15-Islam.htm
‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
"You must know Islam’s firm position against all these terrible crimes. The world must know that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy and goodness; it is a religion of justice and guidance…Islam has forbidden violence in all its forms. It forbids the hijacking airplanes, ships and other means of transport, and it forbids all acts that undermine the security of the innocent."
Hajj sermon of February 2, 2004, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 10
Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"As a human community we must be vigilant and careful to oppose these pernicious and shameless evils, which are not justified by any sane logic, nor by the religion of Islam."
Statement of September 14, 2001, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 6
Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"And I repeat once again: that this act that the United states was afflicted with, with this vulgarity and barbarism, and which is even more barbaric than terrorist acts, I say that these acts are from the depths of depravity and the worst of evils."
Televised statement of September 2001, in Muhammad ibn Hussin Al-Qahtani, editor, The Position of Saudi Muslim Scholars Regarding Terrorism in the Name of Islam (Saudi Arabia, 2004), pages 27-28.
Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah al-Sabil, member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, Saudi Arabia:
“Any attack on innocent people is unlawful and contrary to shari'a (Islamic law). ... Muslims must safeguard the lives, honor and property of Christians and Jews. Attacking them contradicts shari'a.”
Agence France Presse, December 4, 2001
Council of Saudi ‘Ulama', fatwa of February 2003:
"What is happening in some countries from the shedding of the innocent blood and the bombing of buildings and ships and the destruction of public and private installations is a criminal act against Islam. ... Those who carry out such acts have the deviant beliefs and misleading ideologies and are responsible for the crime. Islam and Muslims should not be held responsible for such actions."
The Dawn newspaper, Karachi, Pakistan, February 8, 2003, http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/08/top17.htm; also in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 10
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar:
"Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts. Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads: ‘Who so ever kills a human being [as punishment] for [crimes] other than manslaughter or [sowing] corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’ (Al-Ma’idah:32)."
Statement of September 13, 2001. http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml. Arabic original at http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=1665&version=1&template_id=130&parent_id=17
Tahirul Qadri, head of the Awami Tehrik Party, Pakistan:
"Bombing embassies or destroying non-military installations like the World Trade Center is no jihad. ... "[T]hose who launched the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks not only killed thousands of innocent people in the United States but also put the lives of millions of Muslims across the world at risk. ... Bin Laden is not a prophet that we should put thousands of lives at risk for."
United Press International, October 18, 2001, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/195606.shtml
Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran:
“Killing of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weopons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington.”
Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001, http://www.irna.com/en/hphoto/010916000000.ehp.shtml
President Muhammad Khatami of Iran:
“[T]he September 11 terrorist blasts in America can only be the job of a group that have voluntarily severed their own ears and tongues, so that the only language with which they could communicate would be destroying and spreading death.”
Address to the United Nations General Assembly, November 9, 2001, http://www.president.ir/cronicnews/1380/8008/800818/800818.htm#b3
League of Arab States:
“The General-Secretariat of the League of Arab States shares with the people and government of the United States of America the feelings of revulsion, horror and shock over the terrorist attacks that ripped through the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, inflicting heavy damage and killing and wounding thousands of many nationalities. These terrorist crimes have been viewed by the League as inadmissible and deserving all condemnation. Divergence of views between the Arabs and the United States over the latter’s foreign policy on the Middle East crisis does in no way adversely affect the common Arab attitude of compassion with the people and government of the United States at such moments of facing the menace and ruthlessness of international terrorism. In more than one statement released since the horrendous attacks, the League has also expressed deep sympathy with the families of the victims. In remarks to newsmen immediately following the tragic events, Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa described the feelings of the Arab world as demonstrably sympathetic with the American people, particularly with families and individuals who lost their loved ones. “It is indeed tormenting that any country or people or city anywhere in the world be the scene of such disastrous attacks,” he added. While convinced that it is both inconceivable and lamentable that such a large-scale, organised terrorist campaign take place anywhere, anytime, the League believes that the dreadful attacks against WTC and the Pentagon unveil, time and again, that the cancer of terrorism can be extensively damaging if left unchecked. It follows that there is a pressing and urgent need to combat world terrorism. In this context, an earlier call by [Egyptian] President Hosni Mubarak for convening an international conference to draw up universal accord on ways and means to eradicate this phenomenon and demonstrate international solidarity is worthy of active consideration. The Arabs have walked a large distancein the fight against cross-border terrorism by concluding in April 1998 the Arab Agreement on Combating Terrorism.”
September 17, 2001, http://www.leagueofarabstates.org/E_Perspectives_17_09_01.asp
Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference:
“Following the bloody attacks against major buildings and installations in the United States yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, secretary-general of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), stated that he was shocked and deeply saddened when he heard of those attacks which led to the death and injury of a very large number of innocent American citizens. Dr. Belkeziz said he was denouncing and condemning those criminal and brutal acts that ran counter to all covenants, humanitarian values and divine religions foremost among which was Islam.”
Press Release, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, September 12, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/september%202001/america%20on%20attack.htm
Organization of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers:
“The Conference strongly condemned the brutal terror acts that befell the United States, caused huge losses in human lives from various nationalities and wreaked tremendous destruction and damage in New York and Washington. It further reaffirmed that these terror acts ran counter to the teachings of the divine religions as well as ethical and human values, stressed the necessity of tracking down the perpetrators of these acts in the light of the results of investigations and bringing them to justice to inflict on them the penalty they deserve, and underscored its support of this effort. In this respect, the Conference expressed its condolences to and sympathy with the people and government of the United States and the families of the victims in these mournful and tragic circumstances.”
Final Communique of the Ninth Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, October 10, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/All%20Download/frmex9.htm
Organization of the Islamic Conference, Summit Conference:
"We are determined to fight terrorism in all its forms. ... Islam is the religion of moderation. It rejects extremism and isolation. There is a need to confront deviant ideology where it appears, including in school curricula. Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance."
Daily Star (Beirut, Lebanon), December 9, 2005, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=20641
Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, Head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs of Turkey:
“Any human being, regardless of his ethnic and religious origin, will never think of carrying out such a violent, evil attack. Whatever its purpose is, this action cannot be justified and tolerated.”
Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, “A Message on Ragaib Night and Terrorism,” September 21, 2001, http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/duyurular/regaibing.htm
Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), Turkish author:
“Islam does not encourage any kind of terrorism; in fact, it denounces it. Those who use terrorism in the name of Islam, in fact, have no other faculty except ignorance and hatred.”
Harun Yahya, “Islam Denounces Terrorism,” http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com
Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi, Pakistani-American Muslim leader:
“The sudden barbaric attack on innocent citizens living in peace is extremely distressing and deplorable. Every gentle human heart goes out to the victims of this attack and as humans we are ashamed at the barbarism perpetrated by a few people. Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance, condemns this act and sees this is as a wounding scar on the face of humanity. I appeal to Muslims to strongly condemn this act, express unity with the victims' relatives, donate blood, money and do whatever it takes to help the affected people.”
“Messages From Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi,” http://www.icna.org/wtc_islahi.htm
Abdal-Hakim Murad, British Muslim author:
“Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures.”
“The Hijackers Were Not Muslims After All: Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists,” http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/masud/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm
Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims:
“We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Canadians in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”
Canadian Society of Muslims, Media Release, September 12, 2001, http://muslim-canada.org/news09112001.html
15 American Muslim organizations:
“We reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of the crime committed on September 11, 2001 and join our fellow Americans in mourning the loss of up to 6000 innocent civilians.”
Muslim American Society (MAS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), Solidarity International, American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice (AMGPJ), American Muslim Alliance (AMA), United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA), Islamic Media Foundation (IMF), American Muslim Foundation (AMF), Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), October 22, 2001, http://www.icna.org/wtc_pr.htm
57 leaders of North American Islamic organizations, 77 intellectuals, and dozens of concerned citizens:
“As American Muslims and scholars of Islam, we wish to restate our conviction that peace and justice constitute the basic principles of the Muslim faith. We wish again to state unequivocally that neither the al-Qaeda organization nor Usama bin Laden represents Islam or reflects Muslim beliefs and practice. Rather, groups like al-Qaeda have misused and abused Islam in order to fit their own radical and indeed anti-Islamic agenda. Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's actions are criminal, misguided and counter to the true teachings of Islam.”
Statement Rejecting Terrorism, September 9, 2002, http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp
American Muslim Political Coordination Council:
“American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”
Dr. Agha Saeed, National Chair of the American Muslim Alliance:
“These attacks are against both divine and human laws and we condemn them in the strongest terms. The Muslim Americans join the nation in calling for swift apprehension and stiff punishment of the perpetrators, and offer our sympathies to the victims and their families.”
Hamza Yusuf, American Muslim leader:
“Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people [who committed murder on September 11] indeed are Arabs, Muslims, they're obviously very sick people and I can't even look at it in religious terms. It's politics, tragic politics. There's no Islamic justification for any of it. ... You can't kill innocent people. There's no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country. In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. The Prophet Muhammad said, ``Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, ``Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.'' The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, say that no one can punish with fire except the lord of fire. It's prohibited to burn anyone in Islam as a punishment. No one can grant these attackers any legitimacy. It was evil.”
San Jose Mercury News, September 15, 2001, http://www0.mercurycenter.com/local/center/isl0916.htm
Nuh Ha Mim Keller, American Muslim author:
“Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral.”
“Making the World Safe for Terrorism,” September 30, 2001, http://220.127.116.11/ISLAM/nuh/terrorism.htm
Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), prominent British Muslim:
"I wish to express my heartfelt horror at the indiscriminate terrorist attacks committed against innocent people of the United States yesterday. While it is still not clear who carried out the attack, it must be stated that no right thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action: the Qur'an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity. We pray for the families of all those who lost their lives in this unthinkable act of violence as well as all those injured; I hope to reflect the feelings of all Muslims and people around the world whose sympathies go out to the victims at this sorrowful moment."
[On singing an a cappella version of "Peace Train" for the Concert for New York City:] "After the tragedy, my heart was heavy with sadness and shock, and I was determined to help in some way. Organizers asked me to take part in a message for tolerance and sing 'Peace Train.' Of course, I agreed. ... As a Muslim from the West, it is important to me to let people know that these acts of mass murder have nothing to do with Islam and the beliefs of Muslims."
Press release of September 13, 2001, and PR Newswire, October 22, 2001, both at http://www.mountainoflight.co.uk/pages/news/2001.html
Muslims Against Terrorism, a U.S.-based organization:
“As Muslims, we condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Ours is a religion of peace. We are sick and tired of extremists dictating the public face of Islam.”
http://www.muslimsagainstterrorism.org/aboutus.html. This statement has been replaced by a new statement in favor of peace by the group's successor organization, Muslim Voices for Peace, http://www.mvp-us.org.
Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of religious studies, University of Virginia:
“New York was grieving. Sorrow covered the horizons. The pain of separation and of missing family members, neighbors, citizens, humans could be felt in every corner of the country. That day was my personal day of “jihad” (“struggle”) - jihad with my pride and my identity as a Muslim. This is the true meaning of jihad – “struggle with one’s own ego and false pride.” I don’t ever recall that I had prayed so earnestly to God to spare attribution of such madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington to the Muslims. I felt the pain and, perhaps for the first time in my entire life, I felt embarrassed at the thought that it could very well be my fellow Muslims who had committed this horrendous act of terrorism. How could these terrorists invoke God’s mercifulness and compassion when they had, through their evil act, put to shame the entire history of this great religion and its culture of toleration?”
“Where Was God on September 11?," http://www.virginia.edu/~soasia/newsletter/Fall01/God.html
Ali Khan, professor of law, Washburn University School of Law:
“To the most learned in the text of the Quran, these verses must be read in the context of many other verses that stipulate the Islamic law of war---a war that the Islamic leader must declare after due consultation with advisers. For the less learned, however, these verses may provide the motivation and even the plot for a merciless strike against a self-chosen enemy.”
“Attack on America: An Islamic Perspective, September 17, 2001, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew29.htm
Muqtedar Khan, assistant professor of political science, Adrian College, Michigan, USA:
“What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values. The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad. ... If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act? While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).”
“Memo to American Muslims,” October 5, 2001, http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm
Dr. Alaa Al-Yousuf, Bahraini economist and political activist:
“On Friday, 14 September [the first Friday prayers after 11 September], almost the whole world expressed its condemnation of the crime and its grief for the bereaved families of the victims. Those who abstained or, even worse, rejoiced, will have joined the terrorists, not in the murder, but in adding to the incalculable damage on the other victims of the atrocity, namely, Islam as a faith, Muslims and Arabs as peoples, and possibly the Palestinian cause. The terrorists and their apologists managed to sully Islam as a faith both in the eyes of many Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm
Dr. S. Parvez Manzoor, Swedish-based Muslim author:
“If these acts of terror indeed have been perpetrated by Muslim radicals or fundamentalists, they have reaped nothing but eternal damnation, shame and ignominy. For nothing, absolutely nothing, could remotely be advanced as an excuse for these barbaric acts. They represent a total negation of Islamic values, an utter disregard of our fiqhi tradition, and a slap in the face of the Ummah. They are in total contrast to what Islamic reason, compassion and faith stand for. Even from the more mundane criteria of common good, the maslaha of the jurists, these acts are treasonous and suicidal. Islamic faith has been so callously and casually sacrificed at the altar of politics, a home-grown politics of parochial causes, primeval passions, self-endorsing piety and messianic terror.”
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm
Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Islamic activist and former deputy prime minister:
“Never in Islam's entire history has the action of so few of its followers caused the religion and its community of believers to be such an abomination in the eyes of others. Millions of Muslims who fled to North America and Europe to escape poverty and persecution at home have become the object of hatred and are now profiled as potential terrorists. And the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorize their critics and dissenters. This is what Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists and sponsors have done to Islam and its community worldwide by their murder of innocents at the World Trade Center in New York and the Defense Depart-ment in Washington. The attack must be condemned, and the condemnation must be without reservation.”
Anwar Ibrahim, “Growth of Democracy Is the Answer to Terrorism,” International Herald Tribune, October 11, 2001, http://www.iht.com/articles/35281.htm
Ziauddin Sardar, British Muslim author:
“The failure of Islamic movements is their inability to come to terms with modernity, to give modernity a sustainable home-grown expression. Instead of engaging with the abundant problems that bedevil Muslim lives, the Islamic prescription consists of blind following of narrow pieties and slavish submission to inept obscurantists. Instead of engagement with the wider world, they have made Islam into an ethic of separation, separate under-development, and negation of the rest of the world.”
Ziauddin Sardar, “Islam has become its own enemy,” The Observer, October 21, 2001, http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,577942,00.html
Khaled Abou El Fadl, Kuwaiti-Egyptian-American legal scholar:
“It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant readings. Historically, Islamic civilization has displayed a remarkable ability to recognize possibilities of tolerance, and to act upon these possibilities.”
Khaled Abou El Fadl, “The Place of Tolerance in Islam: On Reading the Qur'an -- and Misreading It,” Boston Review, December 2001/January 2002, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR26.6/elfadl.html
Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti, Palestinian-American mufti and member of the North American Fiqh Council:
“The people who attacked the WTC and Pentagon and hijacked the forth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are criminal who deserve the severest punishment as the Quran elaborates. They are murderers and terrorists. If there were any person who felt happy for that incident we would not be able to equate them with those criminals, but we can say no one with faith and ethics would accept anything of that murder and targeting of innocent people.”
Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti, "Fatwa Session on Latest Tragic Events," IslamOnline, September 20, 2001, http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=pdwD2E
Syed Shahabuddin, Indian Muslim author:
“Islam prohibits terrorism as well as suicide. Jihad is neither and has no place for taking innocent lives or one’s own life. No cause, howsoever noble or just, can justify terrorism. So while one may sympathize with the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and support their claim to a state of their own, while one may appreciate the democratic awakening among the people of many Muslim states and uphold their demand for withdrawal of foreign presence from their soil and support their struggle for revision of the terms of trade for their natural resources, no thinking Muslim can go along with the use of terrorism for securing political goals.”
Syed Shahabuddin, "Global war against terrorism – the Islamic dimension," Milli Gazette newspaper, New Delhi, India, November 1, 2001, http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01112001/34.htm
Dr. M. A. Zaki Badawi, principal of the Muslim College, London, England:
“Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime.”
Dr. M. A. Zaki Badawi, "Terrorism has no place in Islam," Arab News, Jiddah-Riyadh-Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, September 28, 2001, http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=9314&d=28&m=9&y=2001
Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, head mufti at Jamiat-ul-Uloom-ul-Islamia seminary, Binori Town, Pakistan and a leader of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) party, Pakistan:
“It's wrong to kill innocent people. ... It's also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people.”
The New York Times, September 28, 2001, p. B3
Shaykh Omar Bakri, leader of al-Muhajirun, a radical Islamist movement based in London, England:
“If Islamists did it -- and most likely it is Islamists, because of the nature of what happened -- then they have fully misunderstood the teachings of Islam. ... Even the most radical of us have condemned this. I am always considered to be a radical in the Islamic world and even I condemn it.”
The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), September 13, 2001, p. B6
Zuhair Qudah, a preacher at al-Lawzieen mosque, Amman, Jordan:
"We stand by our Palestinian brothers in their struggle to end the occupation, but we don't condone violence, ugly crimes and the killing of innocent people."
Associated Press, September 14, 2001
Salih bin Muhammad Lahidan, chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
“Killing the weak, infants, women, and the elderly, and destroying property, are considered serious crimes in Islam. . . . Viewing on the TV networks what happened to the twin towers . . . was like watching doomsday. Those who commit such crimes are the worst of people. Anyone who thinks that any Islamic scholar will condone such acts is totally wrong. . . . This barbaric act is not justified by any sane mind-set. . . . This act is pernicious and shameless and evil in the extreme.”
The Washington Post, October 13, 2001, p. B9
Shaykh Rached Ghannouchi, chairman of Tunisia's an-Nahda Movement, in exile in London, England:
“Such destruction can only be condemned by any Muslim, however resentful one may be of America's biased policies supporting occupation in Palestine, as an unacceptable attack on thousands of innocent people having no relation to American policies. Anyone familiar with Islam has no doubt about its rejection of collective punishment, based on the well-known Quranic principle that 'no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.'”
The Washington Post, October 13, 2001, p. B9
Shaykh Salih al-Suhaymi, religious scholar, Saudi Arabia:
“Based upon what has preceded, then we say that that which we believe and hold as our religion concerning what happened to the World Trade Centre in America – and in Allaah lies success – that the terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing, then it is not permissible and Islaam does not allow it in any form whatsoever.”
"Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee speaks about current affairs...," October 18, 2001, translated by Abu 'Iyaad, http://www.fatwaonline.com/news/0011018.htm
Dr. Sayed G. Safavi, Iranian religious scholar and director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, London, England:
“The targeting of innocent persons cannot be allowed. Islam is against any form of terrorism, whether it be carried out by an individual, a group or a state. ... For Muslims to kill civilians unconnected with any attack on them is a crime. The principal law of Islam is: don't attack civilians. This includes civilians of any faith, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian. According to Islam, all people are the family of God. The target of religion is peace.”
Letter to the Editor, The Daily Telegraph, London, England, June 30, 2003, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/06/30/dt3001.xml
Iqbal Siddiqui, editor of Crescent International, London, England:
“History also teaches us that the only effective way of challenging oppression and the only effective way of fighting injustice is through force; that is simply the way of the world. Pacifism is all too often a weapon of the status quo.... When Islamic movements in the world do need to resort to the use of force, that force must be used morally. When extreme fringes of those movements are pushed to use force indiscriminately, immorally, wrongly against illegitimate targets, and using illegitimate weapons (such [as] hijacked jumbo jets), those are crimes for which the people who share their cause, who share their view of the world, their understanding of the need to use force, must also criticise them, turn against them, isolate them. Our standards must be higher than those of the people whom we are fighting, because if we descend to their standards then there is no difference between us.”
Iqbal Siddiqui, "Terrorism and political violence in contemporary history," Conference on Terrorism, Institute of Islamic Studies, London, England, November 13, 2001, published in Muslimedia International, February 16-28, 2002, http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/movement02/terror-hist.htm. Earlier version on-line at http://www.islamic-studies.org/terrorconfer.pro.htm
"In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims."
"What Does Islam Say About Terrorism?" http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=126
Islamic Commission of Spain:
"Muslims, therefore, are not only forbidden from committing crimes against innocent people, but are responsible before God to stop those people who have the intention to do so, since these people 'are planting the seeds of corruption on Earth'.... The perpetration of terrorist acts supposes a rupture of such magnitude with Islamic teaching that it allows to affirm that the individuals or groups who have perpetrated them have stopped being Muslim and have put themselves outside the sphere of Islam."
"Text of the Fatwa Declared Against Osama Bin Laden by the Islamic Commission of Spain," March 17, 2005, http://webislam.com/?idn=537; original Spanish version: "La Comisión Islámica de España emite una fatua condenando el terrorismo y al grupo Al Qaida," March 10, 2005, http://www.webislam.com/?idn=399.
Fatwa signed by more than 500 British Muslim scholars, clerics, and imams:
"Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives. There is neither place nor justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism or terrorism. Suicide bombings, which killed and injured innocent people in London, are HARAAM - vehemently prohibited in Islam, and those who committed these barbaric acts in London [on July 7, 2005] are criminals not martyrs. Such acts, as perpetrated in London, are crimes against all of humanity and contrary to the teachings of Islam. ... The Holy Quran declares: 'Whoever kills a human being… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.' (Quran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32) Islam’s position is clear and unequivocal: Murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity."
British Muslim Forum, press release of July 18, 2005, http://www.britishmuslimforum.org/view_press_release.php?id=26.
Fiqh Council of North America, an association of 18 Muslim legal scholars, fatwa endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and more than 130 Muslim organizations, mosques and leaders in the United States:
"We have consistently condemned terrorism and extremism in all forms and under all circumstances, and we reiterate this unequivocal position. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - prohibited in Islam - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs.'"
"Fatwa by U.S. Muslims Against Religious Extremism," July 25, 2005, http://www.mpac.org/bucket_downloads/fatwa-on-terrorism.pdf.
Shaykh Abdulaziz Al-Asheikh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
The London attacks, "targeting peaceful people, are not condoned by Islam, and are indeed prohibited by our religion. ... Attributing to Islam acts of individual or collective killings, bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceful people is unfair, because they are alien to the divine religion."
Fatwa-Online, July 9, 2005, http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0050709.htm
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab al-'Aqeel, professor of creed ('aqeedah) at the College of Proselytising (da'wah), Islamic University of Madinah, Saudi Arabia:
"Terrorism is the terror that is caused by those groups or individuals who resort to killing and wreaking havoc and destruction. Terrorism is therefore, according to the contemporary compilers of modern Arabic dictionaries, killing akin to the riotous killing that is mentioned within the texts of Shar'eeah. As the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) mentioned with regards to the signs of the end of time, the spread of 'al-Harj' (riotous killing). The meaning of 'al-Harj' is killing and the increase of the spilling blood, which is all from the signs of the end of time. To the extent that the one killing will not know why he is killing and the one that was killed will not know why he/she was killed. Islam is free from this riotous killing, free from this terrorism and free from this kind of corruption. Terrorism is established upon destruction of properties such as factories, farms, places of worship, train stations, airports and the likes; Islam is clearly free from such actions that are based upon corruption and not upon rectification. Terrorists usually say that they are going against the state in which they are based within. This is like the mafia or other criminal organisations that are based on killing people, causing fear and taking their monies. Such criminal organisations have leaders, deputies and individuals that are responsible for establishing regulations for the organisation and individuals responsible for carrying out attacks, and all of them are terrorists causing corruption on the earth. However the ugliest face of terrorism is that which is established in the name of religion, all of the religions from the Prophets (peace be upon them) are free from such terrorism, even if some of the followers of the Prophets participated in such terrorist activities, but the Prophets are free from such corruptions."
Lecture on "The Evils of Terrorism," August 20, 2005, translated in Islam Against Terrorism - v1.20, September 17, 2005, http://www.fatwa-online.com/downloads/dow004/islamagainstterrorism.chm
Bernard Haykel, assistant professor of Islamic law at New York University:
"According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why Bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad: 1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can; 2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad; 3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad; 4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam; 5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma') against Bin Laden's actions (This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic); 6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by Bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic."
The Dawn newspaper, Karachi, Pakistan, October 8, 2001, http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/08/op.htm#2
quote: My advice is don't break our posting policy like that when I'm on watch.
you can delete it and you will.if postings are not anti american or pro islam then it does not fit in your agenda.
You clearly have not read our posting rules the same would apply if someone wrote hate speach about all Americans...
Well you have had your chance to reply Anonymous and a lot longer than 24 hours has taken place.
Message deleted due to breaking rules 1,3,5 and 6 of our posting policy.
Snarky little one, aren't you. I notice that you still refuse to provide any evidence for any of your claims, though. I feel for you on that, though. I realise that there is none that you can provide.
It's the usual rhetoric. They refuse to accept their responsibility for what's going on, pretending that Israel is acting without cause. I'm not an Israel support by a long shoot. I understand that both sides are equally responsible in some fashion or another. This letter is an olive branch with vipers in the leaves.
Translating the Emperor’s Speech
Although not quite as slickly eloquent as Willy before him, Dubya, like his predecessor, is proficient and experienced in the art of speaking one thing and meaning another.
Just as often, he makes statements more flowery than they have to be, possibly intentionally so as to make what he’s saying sound less aggressive than if you were to cut away the extraneous poetry to reveal the plain meaning of his words. Below are highlights from his State of the Union speech, translated into clear and candid English.
Read the translation here
Anthony Gregory should interpret all Bush's speeches. I think he hit this one right on the nose.
A spot o' fun
onegoodmove has a video
from The Colbert Report that is so funny, you'll think your watching a real conservative "journalist." It's worth a look.
ciao volevo sapere come hai messo la barra scorrevole sotto il titolo terrorism news grazie vieni a trovarmi
Defendants boycott Saddam trial
The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven others has resumed without any of the defendants in court. Proceedings had been delayed for two hours on Thursday morning as the eight defendants issued a boycott threat.
Only three sat in court on Wednesday. The defence says the new Kurdish chief judge is biased and is determined to deliver a guilty verdict. Defence lawyers have refused to appear as well, with the court appointing counsel to take their place.
After hearing that the judge was allegedly tortured by Saddam's security agents I really thought this trial could not get any more ridiculous. I was wrong. Today the circus went one better. No defendants or defence lawyers at all !
I suppose they could go one better and just send everyone home, they might as well.
Indeed H, the whole thing is utterly farcical.
How does a contempt of court charge work over there????
Gary, you may find these two pages interesting:
1. The Statute to the Court (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/human_rights/Statute.htm) which merely requires the upholding of Iraqi Criminal Procedure Law...
2. An article with an argument based on Iraqi Criminal Procedure Law (http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/)
It does not matter if they are present or not it is what the people who are telling the story of torture and suffering that you should be saying to yourself how can the world live with itself and have people like Hussein in power.
"There is a verse in the Qur'an that says whoever kills one soul kills all souls. And whoever brings life to people brings life to a nation."
Alex, I was asking myself that a long time ago. At the monster's peak, the response from the U.S. government was to increase support for him.
Hussein, however, is no longer in power. Islam Karimov (to name but one) is in power and is currently the recipient of U.S. and British military and diplomatic support.
I think it does matter Alex if the defendant is there or not . I hold the same view as Amnesty International on such things
'Anyone accused of an offence, however serious, has the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty and to have their guilt or innocence established in a regular court of law in a fair trial.'
I know its a tough call but Saddam has been tried by Media and remember he is not being tried for all is 'crimes' just one crime , the deaths of 148 people and thats it . all the other crimes have been left behind for they can mainly all be linked to the west and our support for him .
I was not witness to the deaths of these 148 people and neither were most Iraqis or all of the newspapers that quote so quickly what happened , so evidence is important . I know he was an evil dictator but remember we claim to have removed him to replace him with something better , if we are going to deny him a fair trial then what makes us better than Saddam ?
if we wanted unfair trials and justice without defence then we could have just left saddam in place.
if we wanted unfair trials and justice without defence then we could have just left saddam in place.
Canuck hunting season opens in Iraq
Guess I better head down to Crappy Tire and pick me up a camo toque to deke out these hosers, eh. [Sorry, I still carry Canadian passport, so I couldn't resist.]
via Common Dreams
The US military shot at the Canadian ambassador's car in Baghdad but no-one was hurt in the "unfortunate incident," a US State department official said.
"There was an incident involving the (US) military and the Canadian ambassador's car today," a State Department official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They shot on it."
Four passengers were riding in the vehicle, including Stewart Henderson, Canada's charge d'affaires in Iraq, when US soldiers fired on it "after it reportedly wouldn't stop," Canada's CTV News reported.
The vehicle was apparently travelling alone in the heavily fortified Green Zone when it came across an American military convoy and tried to pass it, the report said.
Members of the US Army's 4th Infantry Divisions gave the driver hand signals to stop. When the car did not, they shot over it, then at it.
"Finally they plugged the car with three rounds. Two went through the hood into the engine block. One shot went through the lower part of the windshield," CTV said.
As i've said elsewhere, DJEB, those American soldiers just appear to be far too trigger happy.
There are rules for shooting at vehicles. Notice the article talked abou waving the vehicle off, then firing warning shots before firing at the vehicle? That is standard practice over here in order to keep the threat of vehicle borne IEDs from detonating on a military convoy. That Soldier most likely had no idea that the truck had Canadians in it. Soldiers aren't too trigger happy, they just protect themselves.
As a canadian, I am outraged! No, not really. I don't blame the soldiers from shooting at the car. The driver and passangers should have known better. Looks like they gave the vehicle ample warning before they shot. from their perspective, it could have been an enemy vehicle, possibly even a suicide attempt, one filled with explosives. At least no one was hurt.
I dont know about you, but if a guy with a gun signals me to stop - I stop! It's all about personal responsibility.
This article is interesting, the Canadians apparently dispute the American version of events, and judging by history, i'm rather more inclined to believe the Canadians actually present, than the Americans on this particular issue:
A U.S. military statement said the shots were aimed "at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."
But one unnamed Canadian diplomat riding in the vehicle told CBC News a bullet entered the passenger compartment. She said the vehicle had kept a safe distance from the convoy and no one remembers any warnings from U.S. soldiers before there was a sudden explosion.
The vehicle carried the charge d'affaires to Iraq, Stewart Henderson, and three others plus a driver.
The U.S. convoy had pulled off to the side of the road and was several lanes from the Canadian vehicle behind a waist-high cement barrier when the shots occurred, the diplomat said.
"We are reassured by our team in Baghdad that all appropriate procedures were followed," said Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Marie-Christine Lilkoff.
"We are aware there are conflicting stories."
The vehicle was reported outfitted with Canadian flags.
Interesting. I guess it's almost a we said - they said situation at this point.
The U.S. gets itself into a lot of such situations, don't they lorring.
At any rate, I find it hard to believe that any of my countrymen would be so foolish as to get near Americans openly carrying guns.
It's certainly interesting loring, that in almost every one of these situations, eyewitness accounts, and victims accounts are usually dramatically different than the US account of events.
I think there has to come a time when people start to say that the eye witnesses and victims can't all be lying.
It is really interesting that given 1 vehicle accident viewd by 5-10 eye witnesses the police will invaribly get 5-10 versions of the event when interviewing said witnesses.
We are here in our chairs, typing away in relative safety. How dare we judge those who know that at any moment their life could be snuffed out by any passing vehicle or person?
Under more ideal conditions one would expect no such incidents. I have to imagine that conditions are far from ideal over there!
Gary get a clue. Our government is bad and people like you let them get away with it.
How dare you say anything to us unless you are fighting in Iraq. Get over there and defend your position.
By the Geneva Conventions, that's how we dare, Gary.
Oh dear, Gary, you appear to be yet another apologist for the criminals.
Obviously, international law doesn't bother you in theleast.
Ya dont seem to be able to hear me. The soldier over there trying to stay alive IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
I feel for them and support them - the guys like you and me.
The govn. is another issue. Our politicians are not over there dodging bullets and IEDs like maybe they should be.
I think about the soldier who has to make those instant decisions in an effort to stay alive, while people over here on their keyboards group them into the machine of the bad government, and judge them as such.
That is no more right than the war itself!!!!!!!!!!!!
So - on that point I say - You get a Clue!
I was not going to say this - yet have changed my mind.
My Dad went into the Navy during WWII. He was radioman on the general's flagship. It was NOT his war - he went. HE saw the Kamakazi planes trying to kill him. He was on the ship where Admiral Moon took a 45 to his own head over the Normandy Invasion. He came home from that war and a few years later I was born.
He came home from the war, and yet, in truth, he lost the battle with cancer just and hour and a half ago.
So, yes is support the troops - if not the politicians.
I will now take a 5 hour drive to go be with my Mother, and may be back at this keboard next week.
Gary, you are not under attack here, I think (or hope at least). Yes, the line "get a clue" is disrespectful (would the person who wrote it please read our comment policy), but let's try not to get at each others throats here.
To all, please try to be as respectful as you would be were you talking face to face.
Very True Djeb.
Sorry I Missed this one. I agree that 'get a clue !' is disrespectful and worthy of being pointed out as such.
As Djeb says . Argue all you like people but lets keep it respectful please.
I agree that being respectful and civil is only right. I would not have returned the line, had I not thought it to be benign enough.
I wonder though, did my point score, or was it missed in the politeness?
If we can leave behind the mildly insulting comment against you, Gary, I did hear your point. No, soldiers are not their governments. But they are human beings with their own responsibility to behave as such. They can get out if they want to. The worst that's going to happen to them is court martial.
Pakistan : Amnesty anger at innocent civilians killed by CIA drone
Amnesty International today wrote to US President George Bush to express its concern that between 13 and 18 people were killed on 13 January 2006, when missiles were fired into three houses in Damadola in Bajaur Agency, a federally administered tribal area. Reports indicate that “Hellfire” missiles were fired from an unmanned Predator drone probably operated by the CIA.
Their intended target appears to have been Ayman al-Zawahiri, a high ranking al- Qa’ida operative, who was not reportedly amongst the dead. In the letter Amnesty International said it was concerned that a pattern of killings carried out with these weapons appeared to reflect a US government policy condoning extrajudicial executions. Amnesty International reiterated to the US President that extrajudicial executions are strictly prohibited under international human rights law. Anyone accused of an offence, however serious, has the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty and to have their guilt or innocence established in a regular court of law in a fair trial.
The fact that Pakistan and the USA closely cooperate on security issues and that the USA believed they knew the location of suspects, suggests that it may have been possible to attempt to arrest the suspects in order to bring them to trial. The failure to attempt such arrest points to a policy of elimination of suspects and a deliberate disregard of the duty to prosecute in a fair process. In addition, the fact that air surveillance, witnessed by local people, took place for several days before the attack indicates that those ordering the attack on the basis of this information were very likely to have been aware of the presence of women and children and others unconnected with political violence in the area of the attack.
Reports about the identity of the victims remain confused. While the Government of Pakistan has regretted the deaths of “18 innocent local people”, the head of the Bajaur administration said that up to five foreign militants had been killed and their bodies had been removed by associates. Security officials were subsequently quoted in Pakistani media as saying that the dead included Abdur Rehman al-Maghribi, the Moroccan son-in-law of al-Zawahiri, Midhat Mursi al-Sayid 'Umar, an Egyptian explosives expert, and Abu Obaidah al-Masri, al-Qa'ida's chief of operations in Afghanistan's Kunar province.
As no bodies were produced other than those of non-militant victims, it is unclear on what basis this identification was made. Pakistani journalists who interviewed local people said that the victims were all civilians, including five women, five children and eight men and that reports of militants killed in the attack were intended to justify an attack based on faulty intelligence. Member of the National Assembly for Bajaur Haroon ur-Rashid, who was in the area at the time of the attack, said he had known all the victims personally and categorically denied reports of bodies of militants being taken away. On 22 January Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said that there was “no tangible physical evidence” of militants having been killed in the attack.
Continue reading the report at Amnesty International
AT&T sued over NSA spy program
AT&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in San Francisco's federal district court, charges that AT&T has opened its telecommunications facilities up to the NSA and continues to "to assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the suit, says AT&T's alleged cooperation violates free speech and privacy rights found in the U.S. Constitution and also contravenes federal wiretapping law, which prohibits electronic surveillance "except as authorized by statute." Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff attorney, said he anticipates that the Bush administration will intervene in the case on behalf of AT&T. "We are definitely going to have a fight with the government and AT&T," he said.
AT&T said Tuesday that it needed to review the complaint before it could respond. But AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk told CNET News.com last week in response to a query about NSA cooperation: "We don't comment on matters of national security."
A Los Angeles Times article dated Dec. 26 quoted an unnamed source as saying the NSA has a "direct hookup" into an AT&T database that stores information about all domestic phone calls, including how long they lasted.
If the Bush administration does intervene, EFF could have a formidable hurdle to overcome: the so-called "state secrets" doctrine. The state secrets privilege, outlined by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case, permits the government to derail a lawsuit that might otherwise lead to the disclosure of military secrets.
Good luck to EFF, it certainly appears that they have a sound case.
The New Geopolitics
The war in Iraq has reconfigured the global geopolitical landscape in many ways, some of which may not be apparent for years or even decades to come. It has certainly altered the U.S. relationship with Europe and the Middle East. But its impact goes well beyond this. More than anything else, the war reveals that the new central pivot of world competition is the south-central area of Eurasia.
Continue reading here
An in depth and interesting article.
Iran's president lashes out at Bush
Iran's president lashed out Wednesday at the United States and vowed to resist the pressure of "bully countries" as European nations circulated a draft resolution urging that Tehran be brought before the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities.
In a speech to thousands of supporters hours after President Bush's State of the Union address, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided the United States as a "hollow superpower" that is "tainted with the blood of nations" and said Tehran would continue its nuclear program.
"Nuclear energy is our right, and we will resist until this right is fully realized," Ahmadinejad told the crowd in the southern Iran city of Bushehr, the site of Iran's only nuclear power plant. "Our nation can't give in to the coercion of some bully countries who imagine they are the whole world and see themselves equal to the entire globe," he added. The crowd responded with chants of "Nuclear energy is our right!"
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said at a news conference that the Islamic republic would halt intrusive U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities and resume large-scale enrichment of uranium if it is taken before the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
Larijani also said Iran remains committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, despite calls from hard-line newspapers to withdraw from the agreement if the International Atomic Energy Agency reports Iran to the Security Council on Thursday, as expected.
Iran's main enrichment plant at Natanz "is ready for work," he said. "We only need to notify the IAEA that we are resuming enrichment. When we do that is our call," Larijani said. If Iran is reported to the Security Council, we will do it quickly," he added.
Referring to the IAEA meeting, he added: "In case the issue is reported or referred to the Security Council, we will have to stop implementation of the Additional Protocol" — a procedure that allows IAEA inspectors to carry out intrusive searches of a country's nuclear facilities without warning. "The result would be Iran's cooperating with the IAEA at a low level, which is against our wishes. All our suspensions on nuclear activities would be lifted," he said, meaning that Iran would feel free to enrich uranium without hindrance.
Read more at the Source
Myself, I agree that Iran has the right to develope nuclear energy for the people. All they need to do is prove their intentions are so.
The provocation is on their part - yet we all will pay the conquences. That's the really sad part to this, the world will suffer.
I Agree gary apart from I dont believe 'all' the provocation has been on their part.
There is no denying that the rhetoric coming out of Iran has been disgusting but some of ours(as in the wes) hasnt been to good either.
Saddam Lawyers Want 'biased' Chief Judge Removed
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Saddam Hussein's defense lawyers are demanding that the new chief judge be removed before they will end their boycott of the trial, which resumes Wednesday after a stormy session where the former president was tossed out.
Khalil al-Dulaimi and Khamis al-Obeidi said they have written to the Iraqi High Tribunal to demand that Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, who was named chief judge last week, be removed from the current trial and any other legal proceedings against Saddam.The two Iraqi lawyers told The Associated Press that they believed Abdel-Rahman, a Kurd, was biased because his hometown of Halabja was subjected to a 1988 poison gas attack allegedly ordered by the former president.
Some 5,000 Kurds were killed in that attack, including several of Abdel-Rahman's relatives.
"We will demand that this judge be removed from the trial and any other trials involving my client," al-Dulaimi said by telephone from Amman, Jordan. Al-Dulaimi, who heads Saddam's defense team, described Abdel-Rahman as a "legal adversary of my client."Arab media reports claimed Abdel-Rahman had been detained and tortured in the 1980s by Saddam's security agents.
Efforts to contact Abdel-Rahman were unsuccessful. However, another judge who is not part of the Dujail trial said Abdel-Rahman
suffered permanent injuries to his back and one of his legs due to torture. The judge spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the Saddam case.
Source : Here
As much as I want to see Saddam tried for his crimes, you can't allow the victims of crime to become the judge and jury, that's just scandalous if you desire a fair trial. Of course many people say that Saddam does not deserve a fair trial as he was far from fair and just when he was the President. Well the reply to that is simple. We are not Saddam. We claim to be better than people like Saddam as we claim to have freedom, democracy and justice. This is about the creation of the kind of society which those in favour of removing Saddam by force said we would deliver. (As is often used in attempted justification for the invasion of Iraq.) By refusing Saddam a fair and just trial we would become no better than the barbarians we claim such people are. There should be a clear line between the side of right and the side of wrong.
The side of right believes in a fair trial, believes in the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and believes that every person has the right to defend themselves in court. How can anybody claim that justice has been served when the judge is an alleged victim of the defendants crimes. Such a ridiculous scenario would never be allowed to happen in Western democratic societies. If I had the chance to be judge over the fool who stole my bike last year I would sentence him to the minimum of life in prison with hard labour and I certainly wouldn't care if nobody had any evidence.
Would that be right ?
Well I am impressed with your weekly blog. I didnt catch the new Saddam story in the paper. I did see our President deliver his speech and I am not sure if he understands how poorly America is viewed right now and Im not sure if he understands that corruption is hard to fight when everyone thinks you might be corrupt. But you are absolutely right about fair trials. How the administrations could not see a problem with this I am not sure.
Saddam and the rest of those scums should be tried by the Kurds. That will be Justice.
And President Bush should be tried by the families of the 18 woman and children murdered in Pakistan a few week ago.
If you dont think Saddam deserves a fair trial then why would anyone deserve a fair trial. ?
Being just as Barbaric as the leaders of the rogue states we attack does not make us the good guys.
I am hoping you used a dramatic flair when describing your annointed punishment to the thief who repossessed your bike.
I do agree that a trial with due process should ensue and a judge with the highest level of impartiality should be appointed.
Courts of an international nature consistently convolude concepts of impartial justice. It will be interesting to see what the court will be like in Lebanon...
I agree too. Saddam has as much right to a fair trial as anybody else. The Americans should be made to deliver Saddam to the Hague, where an impartial trial has a chance.
I never owned a bike :-)
Just trying to make a point thats all.
I agree , the Hague is the only place any attempt at a fair trial can take place.
The Hague... which court exactly are you referencing? I am unaware of one that has jurisdiction over such things...
Nobody has jurisdiction. the current Trial of Saddam was started whilst under an occupying power and before Iraq had its own democratically elected government or constitution
If you wish to say the Hague is invalid then it is no more or less invalid than the current trial taking place.
A special court would need to be set up that was in dependant of the US,UK,IRAQ and Saddam would need to be charged with crimes against humanity.
you tell me where Saddam can be legally tried ? as you said the other day the trials after world war two were retrospective and the trials Saddam is being charged with are also retrospective. He committed them before the current laws were in place to say that he should not have.
There is no logic to this. You have to do whats right. the US and UK are occupying powers after an illegal invasion so they cant do it . The victims of Saddam's 'crimes' cant do it
so we have to look at what is right and the only correct action is the United Nations to set up a fair trial in a fair place where defence lawyers do not get shot and the judge was not tortured by Saddam
its a hell of lot better than whats happening now so do you have any better ideas ?
News Update :
The resumption of Saddam Hussein's war crimes trial has been delayed because of unspecified "procedural issues", court officials have said.
Lawyers for the former Iraqi leader had refused to return to court unless the new chief judge was replaced.
so no trial today it seems.
First of all, your argument of relativity does not apply here. Different courts have different jurisdictions, period. For example, the ICJ sees to disputes between consenting States.
Now, if you want to get into the legality of courts on your own moral accord (doing what is "right"), that is your perogative, but that is simply not the way courts are run. They are run on statute, on defined law. I understand what you are saying- laws come from somewhere- where is that underlying moral code that is the foundation for justice- I totally see what you are saying.
Nuremberg was retrospective, and by that very definition, it was set AFTER the crimes- thus, applying a court that has existed in the Hague, which was established with no jurisdiction to such matters is ridiculous. If you think the Statutes should be changed, that is another issue all together.
As for trying Saddam, I think he should be tried by Iraqis in Iraq. Of course I would prefer him tried in an international court, but I want courts like Nuremberg to be the exception, not the rule. It has significant precedent, don't get me wrong, but I believe we are in a state of transition in accordance with international trials and we are young- Nuremberg-->ICTY-->ICTR-->hybrids (Sierra Leone, etc.) -->ICC. This will take time. Until then, courts must be made in an ad-hoc fashion and this is provided for, legally. As long as there is sufficient procedural history and protected rights that can be found to supplement what the trial is founded upon (i.e. what they did in Nuremberg).
M I said a 'new' court would have to be defined. There was no court to put saddam on trial until 2005 , the powers that put him on trial did not have the authority of the Iraqi people to do so !If you insist on the view you present above then I can only assume that you will insist on having saddam released for there is no court that has any authority to touch him..
You can not claim the hague is not legal but fail to show in any way why the court in Iraq is legal ? Saddam Is only being charged with the death of less than 200 people during the a period of war with iran so you can without doubt call his actions a war crime and try him as such if you will .you preach about how thecourts are run but you fail to notice that the case being tried fails the very same test.He can not be tried for the gassing of the kurds because american companies helped saddam get the gas that used and the official US response from the time was to blame Iran.
this is not about some pseudo opinion. your just repeating what I told you . that NO court has the authority to run this trial
So make up your mind , either legal authority does not matter and hence saddam should be tried in the safest and fairest place (the hague) or authority does matter and hence YOU believe that saddam should be realised without charge
you make no sense at all !
It seems to me that your argument makes sense H. Indeed, a victim of a crime should not be the judge at the trial of crimes committed by the people allegedly responsible for those crimes.
The Hague has no rightful jurisdiction under any statute of any court there.
Hussein should be tried in a trial with due process.
Will respond in length in email.
Saddam Hussain will never get a fair trial - as everyone has a preconceived idea of his 'guilt' or 'innocence'. It is however complete hypocrisy to believe any country under occupation can deliver real justice. Time for the reconstruction of Iraq to be pursued and the Americans to wake up to reality. The Iraqis do not want them there.
That a defendent can boycott a trial is the most absurd thing I've ever heard of. He should be dragged to court in irons!!
huya message deleted
If you wish to prevent all your messages being deleted then please ask about our posting policy.
If you believe we love murderers and terrorists then please supply actual evidence of that.
It seems anyone who disagrees with your view is clearly a lover of terrorists , how very unAmerican of you. you clearly have no desire to live in a democracy.
I have lost friends over the years due to terrorism and I find your view offensive. You may well find my view offensive but this is my site you don't have to come here.We look at different angles and different solutions to the problems of terrorism.
There once was a time when Ronald McDonald was a supporter of terrorism and every burger bought in the USA made a little donation to the cause of the IRA. people I know are dead due to the IRA. so if you have ever bought a burger then you are probably more of a supporter of terrorism then I am and if you have never bought a burger well you still did nothing about it so which are you a supporter of terrorism or do you just harbour those that support terrorism.
Luis Posada Carriles is a terrorist and the United states refuses to hand him over for trial . He put a bomb on a civilian plane that killed all the passengers on board but they wont hand him over as he was working for the CIA when he did it. So Please save your breath and your hypocrisy. If you want to post here then follow the rules like everyone else and supply evidence of the point you wish to make.
We need to make sure this trial looks as legitimate as possible to the resto f hte world. However, it looks more like a Jerry Springer episode than a trial lately.
MANIFIESTO POR LA CULTURA EN BLOGOSFERA
Sitios independientes, miden alternativa, crecen y se multiplican.
Unidos para mejorar la cultura que sea cultura, que no se detenga la palabra, todos leemos los mismos libros, recibimos la misma educación que ellos, podemos iniciar una revolución ( cambio).
UK: 100th soldier dies in Iraq
A British soldier has died in a blast in southern Iraq - the 100th UK forces fatality since the 2003 invasion. The soldier, from the 7th Armoured Brigade, died as result of injuries sustained after a blast in Umm Qasr in Basra province, the UK government said.
Three other troops were injured, one seriously. They are receiving treatment at the Shaibah medical facility.
There's a new movement. It's time to take the country back into our own hands.
Impeach George W. Bush
Spread the word.
Indeed, 100 British lives lost nost now, and yet more blood has been spilled to cement Blair's so called "special relationship" with the toxic texecutioner.
I wonder if Blair still feels that all that blood is a price worth paying? No doubt so long as it isn't his blood he's perfectly happy.
1 british solider is a tragedy, 100 iraqians are not even statistics...
But at least you are better of than Norway where the lies are so huge up that you can't even see them. Since the people strongly opposed to embedding troops in Iraq our government found a better sollution. They said: "Mr. Bush, we will NOT support your war in Iraq! (whispering:) But what if we send like the amount of young Norwegians to Afghanistan that you need. By this you can liberate american soliders there and put them into Iraq. Nobody cares about Afghanistan anyhow now... We even give you som F16 on the deal." By this Norwegians setteled down and had a good conciousness forever after.
Irish troops are being sent to, even though is RIDICULOUS as Ireland is neutral, but a war is a war, and no one really is neutral in a war
I would disagree with you that Blair doesn't care about Soldier's blood since it isn't his. I am a platoon leader in Iraq who has been hit 5 times by IEDs. Two times other vehicles in my platoon were hit and that is easily 100 times worse than being in the vehicle that was hit. Luckily no one I am in charge of has been killed, but every time I hear an explosion and it isn't on my vehicle, my heart leaps in my chest. I understand that I have a lot closer relationship to my Soldiers than Blair has to the British Soldiers, but trust me, there is a feeling you get when people you are responsible for are injured and you could have done something to change that (minus taking them totally away from the danger).
I appreciate the blog here because it shows a different side of information than most Americans see (since ALL journalism is biased). But understand, Bush is not sending these Soldiers to die, Americans are volunteering to join the military and fight against an enemy they fear could change the American way of life if something isn't done. These men and women are brave and deserve all the support we can give them (and I know that you aren't attacking the military, I just am trying to get out my view of things).
Your view is very welcome here and I respect your point of view without question. Your correct that we do not attack the men and women who choose to bravely serve their countries.I also do not question that you do so because you 'fear (they) could change the American way of life if something isn't done.'
My only point of contention is whether that word 'fear' is justified or not. We have come along way since the days of FDR when he said the 'Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”
I too have been to Iraq and seen first hand the situation on the ground. I understand your personal duty and loyalty to your cause but I genuinely believe that the cause placed upon you by your president is a false one. America is not under threat (apart from within) any more than it ever has been ,(by Communism etc) and the dangers and solutions to terrorism have been around for many years.
I believe that much of the fear has been placed within the people of the united states after the evil events of 9/11. I believe this insertion of fear has been deliberate and planned. Being in Iraq you will know as well as I do that Saddam was no threat at all to your country (or Israel.) He had no air force, no effective air defence, his army was smaller than in 1991 and of exceptionally low moral , their equipment was poor , they had no links to Al-qaeda and no WMD. He was not making threats against his neighbours or the world.
Now we have got Al-qaeda In Iraq ,We have the increase of influence of Iran and the potential catastrophe if Turkey feels that the Kurds are gaining complete independence which they have already stated they will not accept. Finally we have now promoted Anti American extremists like Muqtada al Sadr who is gaining power . influence and control at immense speed and he (for one) has the potential to become more of a danger to the world than Saddam ever could have been.
In short I feel that such a military invasion was wrong. That it was predictable that these events would turn out as they have and it never could achieve the aim it set. For democracy can never be brought through the barrel of a foreigner's gun, such a thought is illogical, democracy comes from within, as it did in your country and in the soviet union.
The Tragedy of 2200 American dead could have been prevented , the extensive loss of life in Iraq could have been prevented and there is no doubt that sanctions were working (albeit also making the people suffer) . My city (London) was attacked last July by home grown terrorists , terrorists who made it clear they ONLY attacked us due to our personal actions in Iraq , our actions are creating terrorists not reducing them
Since 2001 Al_qaeda has grown a hundred fold, we capture leaders only to have them replaced and each innocent Arab killed (whether by accident or by actions of insurgents/terrorists) we are blamed for in simple terms no such terrorists existed in that country before we started. so we are blamed for the deaths that the 'enemy' create too.
My view is simple , of course the military is vital in the prevention of terrorism but it should not be the main tool . Terrorism is like cancer and you cant use a welders torch to remove a cancer for you simply destroy the living cells as well as the cancerous ones. for ever mother or child killed , more Arabs will get angry and wish your family dead . The math will always run against us
Its backwards logic that simply does not work and is being shown not to work , in London , In Bali , In Madrid and in Jordon
I feel for what you must have seen and been through , I totally respect your commitment to your country and your loyalty to your leader but I have no doubt that you genuinely held fear is not all as it is claimed to be.
Spending years working against the IRA I can tell you that terrorism is a complex beast (I am sure you know) and no success , no moving forward or peace for you family or mine can be reached by the current actions of American foreign policy.
I am very grateful for your comment and welcome your views here any time you so choose
I was going to respond to rhetoric dying, however, I think H has done a good job with their response.
Just wait for avian flu to get hold in Iraq and we'll all have something to worry about. Whilst the troops are dying, 100 times that number of innocent Iraqis are also dying. Where is George Bush's exit strategy? Did none of them think about the possibility that Iraq would not just roll over and accept occupation - or is it oil interests that dominate everything?
Will the US make the same mistake in Palestine - allow the development of a dictatorship without true democracy being offered to the population.
It's only Logical
If you enjoy what we do here on Terrorism News then take a look at the exceptional work being done on the site A Logical Voice
. The site has an incredible ability to keep up with numerous issues a day and it is almost scary to think about the amount of work that must go into keeping it all going. Excellent commentary, logical conclusions and a very enjoyable read. One thing to keep in mind before you decide to give your opinion to the guys over there, they have a very sensible and clear posting policy on the site so make sure you give that a read before leaving any comments.
Thanks for the plug H. I try to make a few posts linking here as often as possible as well, you may have noticed. Anyway, back to work.
Always a Pleasure voice :-)
it's always nice to see alternative sources of information. not everyone will agree with everything that bloggers say, but at least there's room for expression and independant thought, which is always a plus. good stuff.
What do real Iranians think ?
Iranian bloggers are commenting extensively on the nuclear row between Iran and the West. A significant number of bloggers seem to blame President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in particular for the crisis and suggest that he has taken Iran to the brink of war.
The sports lovers are worried that the Iranian team may be expelled from the World Cup because of the nuclear issue and Mr Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel and the Holocaust. There are expressions of confidence about support for Iran in the Islamic world and suggestions that Iranian politicians are playing a sophisticated game.
Below are some entries from a selection of Iranian blogs:'It smells of war'
I wish God would take this sense of national honour away from us; no, I wish He wouldn't but I wish we'd use it at appropriate times...
Why is it that our planes crash, our buildings collapse at the slightest tremor, our cars burst into flames, we don't have even a half-standard football stadium in the entire country, but when it comes to nuclear energy, it's a national issue?!... Anyway, it smells of war. God help us. Our people have suffered a lot over these past 100 years.'Deflecting public opinion'
Mr Ahmadinejad didn't mention in any of his campaign slogans that, if he became president, he intended to remove Israel from the map...
I also don't recall him promising that he'd take the nuclear file to the point of having international sanctions imposed on the country, having the file referred to the Security Council, sacrificing the country's economic interests and war...
What has brought the government to this point today is that it's realised that it's not capable of fulfilling even 55% of its campaign slogans... so it wants to deflect domestic public opinion by creating constant international crises in order to pretend that it's foreigners who are preventing the government from fulfilling its promises.Listening to VOA
As I was going about my work in the evening, I was listening to the "Roundtable with You" programme on the Voice of America and I think that it was an interesting and enlightening programme about the current tensions and the consequences of the sanctions that the Security Council may adopt towards Iran. Make sure you listen to it. I've recorded it for friends who may not be able to access VOA's site because it's being blocked.Opposition to sanctions
Well, the uranium enrichment crisis seems to have reached its acute stages and it's becoming more severe every day. What's the world to do in the face of this problem? Like most Iranians, I'm opposed to any kind of solution that inflicts suffering on the people.Support in the Islamic world
Since I know a lot of Arabs and Muslims, I have to say that they're very, very happy for Iran to even have nuclear weapons. And their argument is always based on the problem of Israel. I've talked to a lot of Britons and Europeans too. They too say that it's Iran's right, because Israel has this technology too.'Who says Iran is different from Iraq?'
I think that it might be possible to do something before we're taken to the Security Council, but I doubt it'll be possible afterwards, because, after referral, Iran will cease its voluntary cooperation measures and inspectors will probably not be allowed into Iran. Who says Iran is different from Iraq?'Count yourself lucky'
Today, my American professor told me: You Iranians should count yourselves lucky that we attacked Iraq, because if we hadn't attacked them, we'd have attacked you by now!'Congratulations Mr President!'
Greetings Mr President! I wanted to congratulate you. God willing, you're on a roll, taking our dear country towards ruin... I won't allow the flames of war, ruin, famine and wretchedness to be lit in my country. I don't want to be shamed any further before the world. I don't want war! I don't want nuclear energy. This oil is more than enough for me.'God help us!'
God help us. And it's only been five months [since Ahmadinejad became president]. We still have three years and six months to go - if it isn't extended.Indifference
Come on you guys. It's really bad to be so indifferent to the country's current affairs and to be totally immersed in personal concerns. I was talking to a friend today about recent political-social issues, the possibility of an embargo and so on, and I realized that they couldn't care less and were only concerned about their own banal affairs.
We all have something called social responsibility. Look how the Europeans are involved in all kinds of movements now for the sake of future generations. But all we think about is our research and finishing our theses and we couldn't care less what's happening in the world.
All these blogs were read by the BBC Monitoring
team and the full article and links to the actual sites can be found here
What a wonderfully diverse range of views. The very people that could likely be killed if those that wish for an immediate attack on Iran got their way. In my opinion those that are willing to bomb Iran without a second thought should spend a moment or two actually getting to know what sort of people they are willing to sacrifice simply based on their view of a President that isn't actually that popular at home ...
Hmmm now where else could that apply ?
It don't believe most of the postings made are from iranians. Seems like a media propaganda to make it clear that iran people hate their president. I personally do like any kind of war, but does it make sense we go for war just to make peace?.
Sorry. One simply mistake. I don't like clashes of any kind :(
remember the hostage crisis in 1979.. war is politics. war is business.
It don't believe most of the postings made are from iranians.
Hahaha , really ? I take it you didn't actually go and look at the blogs for yourself then ? these are real people that you can go and talk too , most of them speak our language but I doubt you speak theirs . I make an attempt to show people that there are good people in Iran , that they have democracy and a large number don't like what is going on between Iran and the west and by denying all these weblogs from being Iranian your attempting to dehumanize them again.
For your reference . below is each and every blog that the quotes come from , speak to these people yourself . ask them , get to know them , then make a judgment
An interesting debate taking place between the Iranian bloggers and people from the US is taking place on one of the blogs http://amshaspands.blogspot.com/
Ps . I would normally make the links more tidy but then someone would doubt the web sites even more
the phrase 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink' comes to mind
From World News:
IRAN has handed over to the International Atomic Energy Agency a document whose only use would be in making nuclear weapons parts, the IAEA says in a confidential report.
The report, to be tabled at an emergency meeting of the agency today, indicates several areas where Tehran is suspected of doing atomic work that could be related to military uses.
And it confirms that Iran has begun research relating to enriching uranium as Tehran prepares to make fuel for nuclear energy that could also be used as atom bomb material.
The report came after the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia agreed they would vote at the IAEA today for Iran's case to be sent to the UN.
would This be the document in question ?
Iran does not have the thousands of centrifuges required to do this and they are at least a decade away from doing so (unless you read the jp)the uranium being enriched is of no use in the creation of nuclear weapons and they will not have any facility to enrich Uranium to a higher enough level until 2012 !!so whats the problem . let the IAEA do its job.sometimes rhetoric is obvious ,
PS having looked at the November IAEA document I am sure that you will have read that although they had the doucmentation (which they themselves handed over) they have no means or enriching the Uranium to the level required.you can try and read what you like into a IAEA report but if you take the whole document it clearly says that there is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb at all.
Thats after 1300 days of inspections
M . sorry I should have said , I was being cheeky :-)
I know it wasnt the same one.
just pointing out the double standards of many who judge Iran without knowing the history of their nuclear program (Am not saying you)
I got asked the same question two days ago on a different thread and i just cut and pasted some bits from my answer to them :-)
Thanks for keeping it interesting.
If I can comment on Iranian blogers: bear in mind, that the curent president got elected in a fine democratic way. He has some support, allthough it seems that he is ridiculed and hated by many.
I bet that there are many Iranian blogs out there that support their president.
Now, as I hear, Ahmadinejad is hated in Iran by many becouse of his coservative views on music and clothing and freedom in general.
SATIRE : President Bush: In an Emergency State Of The Union Speech To Congress
This a piece of satire and that is all it is meant to be. Please do not take this seriously for I certainly did not when posting it. Most sensible people will either find it amusing or pointless. The designer is well aware that a very small number of people may be offended by it and has offered his email to directly correspond with anyone who wishes to take issue with his work email@example.com
. So if you find it funny, grotesque, true, false, anti American, mature, childish or a sure sign that democracy lives in the United states be sure to let Tom know.
Anyway saying all that here
is the satirical State of Union address. (real player required)
Think you could make any more disclaimers in there? ;-D
well you know what people can be like.
Jesus, who the hell cares.
If you want to post, post. Don't make any excuses. Chicks hate that indecisive crap.
But then again, the whole right wingnut commentaries are SOOO friggin overdone.
I mean, blogsphere is becoming the only safe haven for nuts of your kind to spout off. And that's really what it is, isn't it? Just a different sort of public masturbation? Where's the introspection? Where's the self-improvement? Nah, it's just you getting a load off of erm...your shoulders...(yah right).
hahaha that's great thanks :-)
Fortunately for my wife I don't do this to pull 'chicks' Everybody Is a nut to somebody and your my kind of nut thats for sure. So i am certainly delighted to be yours. Thanks for stopping by and masturbating on our site.
BTW what the hell would introspection and self improvement achieve on a site about terrorism ? If that's what your looking for I am sure you can find many such sites out there for your erm , pleasure.
Such sites will probably please you as they will give you an equal level of accuracy in the field of psychoanalysis as you have presented here .
What next , going to complain i don't put enough pictures of badgers on this site.
thanks for the amusement wonderful stuff :-)
Bush is a great leader. He helps christians like me eradicate all other faiths. all terrorists should convert and be saved.
Whats with all the nutters tonight _H_ ? The Christian who wants to wipe out all other faiths and a 'chick' who has just realised that this site does not belong to Dr Phil after all. Did someone leave a door open ?
I have no Idea Alan. Just passing through I assume....
I think more than anything you've hit the nail on the head as my mother say's. Although some of it is a little childish, the truth of the matter is still there. With Bush running the (world) America, it is all becoming the truth isn't it? And how sad is our world becoming that we seem to need to make excuses for something we put on the internet? And to dude talking about masturbating? Get a life. And another hoppy.
Very funny! It's what we're all thinking when he gives a speech anyway -- he might as well just come out and say it like that. :)
i dunno, i kinda like right-wing conspiracies myself. i am not paranoid, they are just out to get me.. (** overdone blogosphere satirical cliche' **)
Zawahiri taunts U.S. in new video
Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri has appeared on a video tape taunting the US about an air strike in Pakistan which failed to kill him. On the tape, aired by Al Jazeera TV, he called the US president a "butcher" and asked: "Do you want to know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses."
Monday's video was his first appearance since a US air strike that targeted him on 13 January in Pakistan.Al-Zawahiri said he had survived the raid which he said killed "innocents".
"US airplanes ... launched a raid on a village in near Peshawar after Eid al-Adha in which 18 Muslim men, women and children were killed in what they call the war against terror," al-Zawahiri said."They said this was intended to kill myself and four brothers but now the whole world has discovered their lies ..."."The whole world has discovered the magnitude of the United States' lies and failure and how barbaric it is in its fight against Islam and Muslims," he said.
"My second message is to the American people, who are drowning in illusions. I tell you that Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in frustrated adventures," he said, speaking in a forceful and angry voice
He said that neither President George Bush nor "all the powers on earth" could bring his death "one second closer".
always happens doesn't it, a so called 'surgical strike' misses, kills some innocent civilians. the administration acts all coy, and then is taken apart by al-zawahari, or bin laden, or whoever is ready at that point to make the most of some free publicity.
very true rush and the pattern never seems to get noticed.
Bush’s State of the Union speech gave more excuses than solutions to the problems in the Middle East. I’ve got to tell you the film The War Within totally opened my eyes about how the mistreatment of those suspected of terrorist activities can actually turn them into what we fear most—terrorists.
U.S. Officials and Iraqi Insurgents in direct talks
American officials in Iraq are in face-to-face talks with high-level Iraqi Sunni insurgents, NEWSWEEK has learned.
Americans are sitting down with "senior members of the leadership" of the Iraqi insurgency, according to Americans and Iraqis with knowledge of the talks (who did not want to be identified when discussing a sensitive and ongoing matter).
The talks are taking place at U.S. military bases in Anbar province, as well as in Jordan and Syria. "Now we have won over the Sunni political leadership," says U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. "The next step is to win over the insurgents." The groups include Baathist cells and religious Islamic factions, as well as former Special Republican Guards and intelligence agents, according to a U.S. official with knowledge of the talks. Iraq's insurgent groups are reaching back. "We want things from the U.S. side, stopping misconduct by U.S. forces, preventing Iranian intervention," said one prominent insurgent leader from a group called the Army of the Mujahedin, who refused to be named because of the delicacy of the discussions. "We can't achieve that without actual meetings."
U.S. intelligence officials have had back-door channels to insurgent groups for many months. The Dec. 15 elections brought many Sunnis to the polls and widened the split between Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi's foreign jihadists and indigenous Sunni insurgents. This marks the first time either Americans or insurgents have admitted that "senior leaders" have met at the negotiating table for planning purposes. "Those who are coming to work with [the U.S.] or come to an understanding with [the U.S.], even if they worked with Al Qaeda in a tactical sense in the past—and I don't know that—they are willing to fight Al Qaeda now," says a Western diplomat in Baghdad who has close knowledge of the discussions. An assortment of some of Iraq's most prominent insurgent groups also recently formed a "council" whose purpose, in addition to publishing religious edicts and coordinating military actions, is to serve as a point of contact for the United States in the future. "The reason they want to unite is to have a public contact with the U.S. if they disagree," says the senior insurgent figure. "If negotiations between armed groups and Americans are not done, then no solutions will be found," says Issa al-Addai al-Mehamdi, a sheik from the prominent Duleimi tribe in Fallujah. "All I can say is that we support the idea of Americans talking with resistance groups."
They have much to discuss. For one, Americans and Iraqi insurgent groups share a common fear of undue Iranian influence in Iraq. "There is more concern about the domination by Iran of Iraq," says a senior Western diplomat, "and that combination of us being open to them and the dynamics of struggle for domination of violence has come together to get them to want to reach an understanding with us." Contacts between U.S. officials and insurgents have been criticized by Iraq's ruling Shiite leaders, many of whom have longstanding ties to Iran and are deeply resented by Sunnis. "We haven't given the green light to [talks] between the U.S. and insurgents," says Vice President Adel Abdel Mehdi, of the Shiite party, called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Negotiations are risky for everyone—not least because tensions between Al Qaeda and Iraq's so-called patriotic resistance is higher than ever. Two weeks ago, assassins killed Sheik Nassir Qarim al-Fahdawi, a prominent Anbar sheik described by other Sunnis as a chief negotiator for the insurgency. "He was killed for talking to the Americans," says Zedan al-Awad, another leading Anbar sheik. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, continues to gain territory in the Sunni heartland, according to al-Awad: "Let me tell you: Zarqawi is in total control of Anbar. The Americans control nothing." Many, on both sides, are hoping that talks could change that.
Source : Newsweek
the fact is that the shia represent 60% of the population of iraq and they have religous and ethnic ties to iran. that can not be gotten rid of, even if all the sunni's in iraq participate in government. maybe the US talking to the insurgents and in the hope of a temporary reduction in violence so as to justify a withdrawal, afterwhich they can go back to the bloodbath. at the moment its an insurgency partly against the US occupation, but its also an insurgency against the shia government and the sunnis know they are outnumbered.
ehat is the likelihood that 5 years from now, the US will be funding the same insurgents that it is fighting today, to fight against the shia iraqi government that is propped up by tehran. it'll be like afghanistan all over again.
i call bs..
You call bs I know its B.S.
Saddam walks out in trial uproar
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein walked out of court amid uproar within minutes of the resumption of his murder trial under a new presiding judge. He left in protest after his defence team walked out, and was followed by two more of his co-defendants.
The walkouts came after the new chief judge, Raouf Abdul Rahman, had Saddam's half brother and co-defendant Barzan al-Tikriti removed from the courtroom. Saddam and seven others are on trial for the 1982 killing of 148 villagers.
They could face the death penalty if convicted of the killings, which followed an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein in the village of Dujail. The trial continued for some time with half of the defendants missing until the judge adjourned it until Wednesday.
The court proceedings started with the new chief judge saying that he would not tolerate any defendants making political speeches or disobeying his authority. His predecessor, Judge Rizgar Amin, had resigned earlier this month after criticism that he had been too lenient towards the defendants.
Mr Tikriti, a former Iraqi intelligence chief who is suffering from cancer, launched into a lengthy complaint about his medical condition and treatment. Judge Rahman ordered the forcible removal of Mr Tikriti, who shouted that the court was "the daughter of a whore" as he was dragged away.
The judge then rounded on the defence lawyers, saying that they had contributed to the atmosphere that allowed defendants to think they could make lengthy speeches and disrespect the authority of the court. Next, a defence lawyer was ejected from the court, and as a result the rest of Saddam's defence team stormed out, despite the judge warning "any lawyer who walks out will not be allowed back into this courtroom".
The former Iraqi leader then launched into a vigorous exchange with the judge, telling him that he wanted to leave and be tried in absentia.
"I want to leave the court," Saddam Hussein demanded of the judge, who in turn ordered the former leader out. "I led you for 35 years and you order me out of the court?" the former Iraqi president responded angrily.
"I am the judge, you are the defendant. You have to obey me," the judge hit back. He accused Judge Rahman of abusing his rights as a defendant who was "innocent until proven guilty".
As the argument became more heated Saddam Hussein banged his hands on the dock and hurled insults at the judge. Eventually, the judge said that the defendant should also be removed and he was led from the court too, shouting "Down with the traitors!" as he went.
Judge Rahman then appointed four new defence lawyers, but two more of the defendants, Taha Yassin Ramadan and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, said they did not approve of their appointment and they also left the court.The trial then resumed with an anonymous female witness giving evidence about events in Dujail from behind a curtain until it was adjourned until Wednesday.
Saad Djebbar, an international lawyer and commentator on Middle East politics, told the BBC that the chaotic scenes meant that the whole trial was being undermined:
"I think it was a big mistake that this trial was held in Iraq because the judge, you cannot find a person, one individual today in Iraq - judge, lawyer, prosecutor who is impartial vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein. Either they are with him or against him."
Source : BBC
More Sources : Star-Telegram
, Wapakoneta Daily News
,Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
, USA Today
Bag Baby (you have to see this video)
Absolutely no connection to terrorism at all but I have never seen anything like this video before. Of course I have heard stories of such things happening but to see something so moving and at the same time shocking that ultimately turns out not to have some tragic ending is quite something.
Watch this video
from the BBC (windows media player required) picked up from Brazilian television.
Oh my god!
Wow. I have such mixed feelings. Part of me is relieved she was found unharmed, another part is furious that someone would take such a measure and another part of me is puzzled as to why someone would choose such a measure.
Totally amazing. I hope they find the mother or father that did this and send them away for life.
Truly amazing and awful at the same time.
I hope they find the folk responsible and they are punished severely
its a treagedy on so many levels. i suspect the child was not born into a happy family. it would be easy to hate the mother of the child that did this, but she must have been depressed, desperate and totally incapable of looking after the child.
its not an excuse but desperate people in desperate situations are do desperate things.
That they do, sunbeam.
I was moved by the video. I suppose I should have felt outrage at the parents, but I didn't. Don't know why, actually, and I'm frankly surprised at myself.
Human rights watch annual review
When Human Rights Watch, a respected organization that has been monitoring the world's behavior since 1978, focuses its annual review on America's use of torture and inhumane treatment, every American should feel a sense of shame. And everyone who has believed in the United States as the staunchest protector of human rights in history should be worried.
Many nations - Belarus, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Cuba, Sudan and China to name only some of the worst - routinely trample on human rights in a way that neither the United States nor any of its allies would ever countenance. But the United States wrote the book on human rights; it defined the alternative to tyranny and injustice. So when the vice president of the United States actually lobbies against a bill that bans "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment," Human Rights Watch is justified in delivering harsh criticism.
The report does not let anyone else off the hook. The massacre of hundreds of demonstrators in Uzbekistan, the ethnic cleansing in Darfur, the restrictions on civil society in Saudi Arabia, the atrocities in Chechnya and all the other familiar episodes of human-rights abuse are reported and condemned.
But in the introduction by the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, the United States is singled out not only because it has raised the heinous practice of torture to a "serious policy option," but also because in so doing it is sacrificing its ability to champion human rights in other countries. America is not the worst violator, Roth writes, but it is the most influential. Now, when Americans accuse Iraqi Shiites of torturing Sunni prisoners, the messenger's reputation taints the message.
The report says that 2005 made clear that abuse of detainees has become a "deliberate, central part of the Bush administration's strategy for interrogating terrorist suspects," and it accuses Britain of complicity in the practice. We have no illusion that the administration will pay any more heed to Human Rights Watch than they have to anyone else on this issue. But the report is also an indictment of the rest of the United States for failing to stop the destruction of its most cherished values.
Source : Here
i couldn't agree more
what is with all the antiamercanism in the media and elsewhere. yeah we mess up every once in a while - we are human after all. but at least we trying to set the standard higher. we are lit. the ONLY ones doing anythign to help the underprivileged.
Anti-Americanism? What is that? What it is, of course, is a term that is used to try to silence anyone who dares to challenge the actions of the government of the United States of America. Thus I say to you what is with your worship of the American government?
And, no, the American government is doing more to create underprivileged people by trying to create overprivileged people than any other nation. There are, however, plenty of "ones" out there trying to help the underprivileged - Counterpart International and Nicco being two examples.
Respects to both, but anonymous and djeb, I believe we can do more than this banter, can't we? (I mean, really- you are anti american, no you made up the word...I mean, come on- what is this accomplishing?)
To be blunt, anonymous, we mess up much more than ONCE in a while but I agree our successes are rarely counted... with great power comes great responsibility.
As for djeb's definition of anti-americanism: I believe it a label attached to any sentiment that is in direct opposition to a core value of American culture (be it political, social, economic, etc.)- thus making it overtly vague and ambiguous; point being- what the term is used for and what it means are two different things. Note djeb: careful with the accusations, the very article posted cites Director Roth stating that the US is NOT the worst violator.
However, to each their own.
I am personally not about to get into an argument over which goverment is the worst. Historical accounts are fickle in such ways- for example, Hitler and WWII were huge issues, but no one seems to be as committed to remembering all that were abused/killed under Mao- thousands and thousands more. My point being, I choose not to play a game of comparison, but instead looking at each case and treating each with due process and justice and comparing cases in such ways to either illuminate a preferred future path or to create comity in law.
As for HRW's report- great job on thoroughness and getting information out there. I strongly agree that Americans must do more to hold our government accountable.
Ok, show me what I have ever posted anywhere on anyforum that was anti-American. Here's to you humming and hawwing and providing no link. What you will find is plenty of citicism of U.S. povernment policy and plenty of defense of American people.
Now, when people throw out the word, it is almost always in response to criticism of U.S. government action. In fact you would be hard pressed to find any other example on this blog.
As for what I said, I can back it up. The U.S. government is the lead promoter, though not the only player, in a long-debunked, crackpot economic model that, as I said, creates underprivileged people around the globe for the purposes of enriching the overprivileged.
And thank your lucky stars that I'm not a moderator here because I would have deleted your crap as a warrantless personal attack.
All governments are corrupt. Give people power and they abuse it, give people power and they try to contol every one else, give America power and they try to take over the world. America don't understand the meaning of Human Rights!
Look, I am not trying to attack you. And it was not a personal attack- I was dealing strictly with issues. I am disappointed you are offended so easily- attack the issues- that is what I have been doing (esp. after your colleague _H_ and I had such an indepth convo over it). I attacked the fact that you two were doing what is tantamount to name calling and I think such a tactic does nothing to further the issues in a debate.
I did not once say you were Anti-american- I don't use that ridiculous label. Plus, I have been called one myself many a time and am quite familiar with the word.
Also, I did not say that you were wrong, I said to be careful. Your concept of the economic model is your personal opinion. I know many lead economists and the like that would say the complete opposite.
I beg you to read my comments for their value and less as something volatile or insinuating something cynical. Like I explained to _H_ I am intense and tear arguments apart.
*_H_, sorry this is long- but how I could not respond?
Anyone who thinks of the us as the "staunchest defender of human rights" is silly. we don't sign 50% of the human rights treaties signed by almost the rest of the world. We never ratified the human rights treaty to Unionize, we never ratified the No Child Labor treaty (because of our military's policy of recruiting 16 year olds) - and countless others.
Since the formation of the UN, the US has always acted this way... we never defended human rights. Its not the American way. We've been torturing detainees since 1919 in the phillipines. Our influence, as you say, is much larger now than it was then, but the practices have pretty much stayed the same. During WWII we opposed the treatment of my people, the Jews, but in the meantime we let IBM technicians travel to Nazi Germany to service the IBM punchcard machines used to organize and barcode the prisoners. We continued to allow CocaCola to sell soda (under the name Fanta) to the Germans... modern America is a rhetorical beast - And you can expect it to be every single time.
This stuff is hilarious. Do you actually think that you know what is going on? In fifty years MAYBE we will know. Everyone, from one person's perspective or another, is a terrorist. It just depends on what you beleive.
M, after rereading and rereading, your comment, I see that your statement "you are anti american" was used to describe the dialogue between myself and the anonymous poster. Sorry I snapped at you. Communication via text is difficult at best and intentions are not always easy to see.
On the economists, point me to one. If it is a neo-classical economist, then his or her opinion is about as good as any snake oil salesman - the supply-theory side of the discipline was demonstarted to be false in 1926 by Pierro Sraffa; the demand-theory side was debunked by their own H.R. Varian in 1992. My concept of the economic model is based on economic history and observable data. Opinion is unsubstantiated assertion.
James, there is nothing about the Abu Graib scandal that is a matter of perspective. Prisoners were mistreated. The passage of fifty years will not change that. The prisoners at Gitmo have denyied habeus corpus in defiance of court order. The passage of fifty years will not change this. The U.S. government had Maher Arar send to Syria for torture. The passage of fifty years will not change this. These are factual statements, not matters of faith as you suggest.
I have to admit that i got a little confused by your comment and had to read it three times before I understood that you were not calling Djeb anti American. The sentence (I mean, really- you are anti american...) was read by me to imply that you were talking to Djeb.Now that you have clarified I can see that you were merely paraphrasing the comment by anonymous at the top of this thread.
As you may have noticed by now , many people pass through this site taking full advantage of the option to leave anonymous comments criticising our posts and never bothering to return to find out if their view was as factual and exact as they perceived it was when they posted itI would say 8 times out of 10 its the same questions , "anti American" , "helping the terrorists" , "why not nuke Iran"etc and it does become tedious to say the least.
In many ways it is my own fault. I want to encourage constructive dissent on this site so I try not to delete the comment that says 'your anti American' hence Djeb and I have probably lost count of the amount of times we have had to respond to the same old rhetorical questions . But the visitor may not have been here before and may not perceive that there question is a bit naive and lacking in any serious substance for debate.
So you will find us giving quick answers (often their own 'logic' fired back at them) as a quick an simple way of processing the anonymous quote so that it has got some kind of response.
In my view Djeb is quite justified to throw back at someone who simply just threw in a sentence and left. If that person made the choice to come back and reply to Djeb's answer then a more detailed discussion could take place and if you check through the site you will see dozens of examples where we will post again day or so later saying 'anonymous we are still waiting for an answer ?'
we are not going to waste our time each day responding in detail to mute points that probably wont be read by the person who posted it . Those that genuinely seek our views will hang around a little longer than that.
Nice comment thank you for your thoughts
I am trying to work out what your point is ? this is a report from human rights watch are you trying to claim it is not true ?
Oh it tugs at the heart strings to see how conserned left-winger are when it
comes to human-rights.
Hey, i have an idea!!
How about we invade the countries where the worst human-rights abusers are in
charge and remove them from power??
Oh shoot! That would be in violation of "international law", sorry i mentioned it.
Hey eveningblogger, I have an idea, how about getting the powerful nations to quit supporting thugs like Islam Karimov. You know - the guy who boils his opponents to death. Or they could stop supporting guys like Saparmurat Niyazov, or Teodoro Obiang, or nations like Saudi Arabia whose courts do things like ordering peoples eyes be gouged out. No need to invade anyone - just stop helping them.
I have an idea instead why don't you spend a week in a Chinese prison or maybe in gitmo and then tell us what you feel about human rights.Maybe you could offer yourself as a willing captive and after a few hours of electric shocks on your testicles you may find you have a slightly different view.
Still along as it is not you and your family that are being boiled to death ?
"No need to invade anyone - just stop helping them."
Ehehe.Again, why not invade them, and kill them?
"why don't you spend a week in a Chinese prison or maybe in gitmo"
Why should i spend any time there? Why not someone who whines about "international law"
when someone decides to take out vermin like saddamn hussein?
"along as it is not you and your family that are being boiled to death ?"
If it was me and my family i recon i could count on you to come to my rescue, guns blazing?
well as long as your just as happy to take out vermin like George bush then your clearly not a hypocrite.
He is certainly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents so he is clearly vermin in your eyes
does vermin only mean other vermin or are you just as willing to put our own vermin to death ?
Eveningblogger. Again, why help them? They won't get very far if they stop receiving military aid and diplomatic support.
And vermin like Saddam Hussein? He was just like the others I mentioned only he stopped following orders.
And if it were your family? Were we in a position of power to make the decisions, we would not be funding those people.
Djeb- as for stopping aid, etc.-
What about the risks a failed State/State in transition poses to the international community? Or threat to their own people? Who then should step in? Is it better to aid and try to fix at the same time, or wait for it to fall and then deal with that?
Perhaps our aid is not sent to "fix" things- which we could get into a long debate over. I guess I am simply asking you to elaborate your thoughts on the matter.
I do not accept as a fact that George Bush or coalition troops
are delibaretly targeting and murdering innocents by the thousands.
What we do know is that iraqi "insurgents" have conducted operations
that could be nothing else than intentionally murdering random iraqis,
like blowing up bombs where soldiers are giving out candy to iraqi
The "insurgents", who are not "rebels" or "nationalist" and often not
even iraqis, are muslim terrorsts doing their usual killing infidels thing.
"Again, why help them? They won't get very far if they stop receiving military aid and diplomatic support"
I personally have no interest in helping them.
I guess the US have made many strategic decisions which are basically like "we'll support this asshole
over the other worse asshole", since rooting out all the assholes in societies which are infested with
assholes and where no powerful dissent exists is very difficult.
As for "they wont get very far" that is just nonsense.Opressive regimes can remain in power for ages no
matter how isolated they are and no matter how many trade sanctions and boycots are put upon them.
"And if it were your family? Were we in a position of power to make the decisions, we would not be funding those people."
If i was still being tortured i couldn't care less.
sorry for the blatant plagirism here Djeb but we need to get some facts straight to start with evening blogger
George bush is a war criminal , that's your starting point , there are plenty of studies and research and reports that will confirm that you have a misguided view of events in Iraq especially on the conduct (under orders) of the US forces within the country and once we have a basic understanding of reality I will gladly allow you to attempt to discredit any sources provided ,
I would ask if you have ever been to iraq considering the view you hold so strongly ?
but let us begin at the start for if you refute that GWB is a war criminal and hence claim he should not be treated as 'vermin' then I ask you to refute the evidence that says he is a war criminal , if we can get to first base then maybe we could manage to hold a debate with you on any of the details you wish ...
these are the facts as we claim them . if you wish to deny them then please supply accurate international laws (your favorite word) that refute these crimes thus removing GWB from the classification of war criminal
The man's power aside, he violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter and the The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (AKA the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928) (and the Geneva conventions as _H_ mentioned) thereby violating Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America.
With regards to Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, I think the judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Corfu Channel case of 1949 fits:
The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the defects in international organization, find a place in international law. Intervention is still less admissible in the particular form it would take here; for, from the nature of things, it would be reserved for the most powerful states and might easily lead to perverting the administration of international justice itself.
The judgement at Nuremburg was also instructive as it pertains to violations of the Kellogg-Briand Pact:
The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
If you're not up to speed on the Kellogg-Briand Pact, it was summed up by Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson in 1932:
War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellog-Briand Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter, when engaged in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law... We denounce them as law breakers.
GW ordered the invasion. GW thereby violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact and Articles 32 and 39 of the UN Charter. GW initiated "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The other day, someone posted something about a duck. It goes something like this: if it looks like a duck. walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then George Bush is a war criminal even if he has too much power to ever stand trial.
awaiting your detailed rebuttal eveningblogger ?
oh I should also add article 2 of the United nations charter for your detailed attempt at denying
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
then of course you could ask the UN itself if the war was illigal why not ask Kofi Annan (video) if the invasion of Iraq was legal or not
M, that would be assuming that military aid that is currently being used to oppress people would somehow switch to be used to help people. I can't imagine how that would happen.
EB, Who here said that "are delibaretly targeting and murdering innocents by the thousands"? Thanks for the straw man fallacy, but no thanks.
Yes, the insurgents have committed terrorist acts. This was predicted by the FBI and other terrorism experts before the war. In other words, it's a good reason not to use war as a means of solving problems.
You have made your racist thoughts known on another thread (and been deleted for your trouble). Considering your hatred of Muslims, why then the concern for their human rights? This is inconsistent.
"I guess the US have made many strategic decisions which are basically like 'we'll support this asshole
over the other worse asshole'..."
Yes. Guess. Exactly. Your opinions are just opinions. They are not based on fact. The initial support for Saddam was not to avoid supporting a "worse asshole." The same goes for support of Karimov (as if there could be anyone worse than a man who has people boiled to death). And "no powerful dissent"? Again, ignorance. There was HUGE protest against Karimov last year, but the man had the army shoot down those protesting. Again, the army. The very institution that the U.S. and UK are supporting, not to avoid a "worse asshole," but to avoid a government that is responsive to the interests of the citizens over the interests of the West.
And again on the your family rhetoric, your family and others would likely not have to live under an unwanted government if it was not being propped up by powerful foreign interests.
I believe it time for me to add a little sidenote. Everything about the USA is not WRONG and HORRID and DESTRUCTIVE.
Am I against torture? Yes. Do I believe international treaties shold be followed? Yes (Article 6 of our Constitution supports that). Do I believe our military has taken actions causing irreprable harm? Yes. Do I believe there is not one good thing our military has done? NO.
The Marines, believe it or not, have played an intricate role in almost all of the recent peacebuilding and community building missions in Africa. Did you know they have helped repatriate THOUSANDS of refugees all over Africa? The chances are little that they would have been able to get back without US military protection. Maybe its not in the news...but it would be futile for us to believe the media knows all- most of the significant decisions being made by our military are clandestine (yes that is debatable). Sometimes, difficult decisions must be made. Sometimes, one person's life is lost to save 100 more. I am not saying it's morally right. I am saying that the decisions being made at that level are astoundingly difficult and not black and white as we perceive them to be.
I am merely saying, there is a larger picture- with many angles. Alas, I know this is a "terrorism" blog- but I think it would be in line to say- 'Marines protect 3,000 refugees from terrorists and get them back safely to their country.'
A law, when it comes to any legal system, could very well be defined like this:
"Something someone has scribbled down on a piece of paper and decide to call a law"
If i were in power and decided to make a law which stated that everyone who have
ever written anything on the internet (except me of course) should be tracked down
and executed you wouldnt think that was right.
And you wouldn't think it was right even if i had persuaded the majority to accept
it (democracy), or if a team of international experts and lawyers and politicians
and historians etc had "found it right" to introduce such a law.
Or am i going out on a limb here? Do you accept anything as long it is labelled "law"?
Acceptable laws must have a rational foundation, there shouldn't be any laws which prevents
people to do anything which is not proven to be of any physical harm to others.
So in short, i couldn't give a rats ass about most international laws.
"War is essentially an evil thing"
No it isn't.
And "evil" is a moral consept, not a legal one.
Initiating the use of force on innocents is evil, it is not evil to use force in return.
But this moral relativity is very normal among left wingers, you see it especially in their
love and admiration of convicted murderers on death row.
"GW ordered the invasion."
Yes he did.
And the only thing i care about is the fact that there are plenty of evidence
of the brutality and atrocities committed by saddam and his cronies.
If there can be provided evidence that Bush has given orders to kill or torture
people he KNOWS are completely innocent then he can be put on trial like anyone else,
but even that doesn't remove the fact that it was morally right to remove saddam.
"Who here said that "are delibaretly targeting and murdering innocents by the thousands"?"
well as long as your just as happy to take out vermin like George bush then your clearly not a hypocrite.
He is certainly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents so he is clearly vermin in your eyes
"Everything about the USA is not WRONG and HORRID and DESTRUCTIVE. "
Who said it was? You come after me for being sensitive? This is not the first time you have come rushing to the defense of the U.S. when we dare to question some particular U.S. policy.
EB, we are certainly thankful that you are not in power. More to say when time permits. Running off to work.
I am making a statement. I don't need a precursor statement to state my belief.
What is the point of telling me I rush to defense? For the record, I wasn't. You said "that would be assuming that military aid that is currently being used to oppress people would somehow switch to be used to help people. I can't imagine how that would happen" so I demonstrated how that could happen- I just made it a statement, instead of a cut at you. But next time, I will make sure I direct my comments to you. And what if I was coming to the defense? Am I not allowed to do that?
While I do not share the same views as you, I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for your comments- this blog needs the commentary and dialogue- makes all of us see a different point of view. Without differing points of view the world would be a scary place.
Please learn to read the other threads EB
i said "He is certainly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents so he is clearly vermin in your eyes "
I did not use the words deliberate at all . neither did I claim anybody was targetting anyone , feel free to twist your own words but mine are my own.
as for your very strange view on laws being bits of paper , are you for real ? that has to go in the scrapbook for one of the more amusing points of view ever expressed on this site ..
the US has signed and agreed to abide by those laws if you dont want to apply them then the US should remove itself from the treaties that it refuses to honour
maybe i should try you warped logic when i get stopped for speeding in my car ..
its ok officer the law is only a bit of paper .
The US has no choice but to abide by the treaties it has signed and so you can argue that the US government should be pushed to remove itself from the treaties but it would still have broken them whilst bound by them and hence GWB would still be a war criminal
or , you can still take up the offer of disputting the laws placed before you
how about the law that says that someone can not come into your home and steal all your things , is that just a bit of paper too ?
should the criminal be allowed to keep all your stuff and face no penelty due to the law being a simple bit of paper .
by all means judge laws that the US has not signed as being of no concern
but treaties signed by the US are international law and the breaking of them makes the subsequent action illigal ..
how strange .
do you refuse to pay taxes ? thats just a law , would your governemnt accept your wonder of logic if you just said I am not going to play along , of course they would not
you would be in jail , as should those that break international law and especially if those laws make the 'vermin' a war criminal
It seems the power of your 'logic' is starting to come through
you miss quote me and you things international agreeements and laws between nations are just bits of paper to ignore as you please.
M , this site gets this kind of debate often....
so far its a very silly debate , international laws dont matter
accurate quotes dont matter
facts dont matter
of course it is fun for a while but without any facts and with the above views in mind which include racism , hatred of muslims and other twisted sickness that have already been deleted from this site
EB has refrained from using such language since (as two comments have been deleted) but encouraging a racist does not do you any justice at all.
unless you think we should have more racists on this site ?
sorry EB you did it again if you are willing to email me your full qualifactions as a muslim scholar I will consider putting your comment back
but calling peoples faith an ' evil doctrine' as a mild example from what you just wrote without showing any relgious qualifications make such a statement is not going to be allowed here
so are you a muslim scholar , which mosque's did you study at ?
and what internationaly recognised qualifications do you have to make such a sweeping statement ?
In concern to racism, I like to hear everyone's opinions quite honestly. It is even more crucial to discuss topics with racists, because there is a larger bridge to be build. I would not delete anything except if it had no relevance to the issue at all. But, you are the moderator- you do as you wish.
as i do , and som opinions are far to stupid to debate with ..
I have spent a great deal of time in the middle east and talked at length with genuine muslim scholars and I certainly will not allow racism on this site ..
if we can not use words like evil and make sweeping statements about muslims and arabs that have no base in reality then I am fine with such a thing
I run this site from the United Kingdom where to print the comment I just deleted is a criminal act.
to make such statements will get you put into jail , which is where such views belong
doubt me , check out the current court case taking place with the leader of the british national party in the UK it is all over the press .
I will not have people commiting what is a crime in my country , nor would I allow people to encourgage such a sick act.
"i said "He is certainly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents so he is clearly vermin in your eyes "
I did not use the words deliberate at all . neither did I claim anybody was targetting anyone ,
feel free to twist your own words but mine are my own."
I was using the words "intentionally" and "deliberately" because i thought it was something
which was indirectly understood.
There are things called collateral damage you know, and it is fundametally different
from intentionally murdering someone.
"I was using the words "intentionally" and "deliberately" because i thought it was something
which was indirectly understood. "
well clearly it wasnt . maybe you should check next time
if i wanted to use those words I would have , It is not for you to decide for me .
Wow- cultural divide. So making racist remarks is illegal in the UK!? To what extent exactly? If it is what I have assumed from your post, I had no idea.
Here, we have clear and present danger tests and the like- basically saying that unless there is imminent physical harm, one may voice an opinion as they wish...mostly we view it quite liberally here and it sits very well with me- although I personally disagree vehemently with racism.
"to make such statements will get you put into jail , which is where such views belong "
Oh the lovely left-wing free speech supporters, how i have gotten to know and love them.
Well i have no interest in "debating" anymore on a site which uses censorship, and
this is very common on sites controlled by people who cannot grasp the consept
bye bye EB
It is currently passing through parliament in its latest form .. some answers for you , or at least some more questions
Government proposals for a law on religious hatred are complicated
What is the government proposing?
The government says it wants to extend protection to people so they cannot be harmed because of their religious beliefs. The proposals include some subtle and complex arguments but boil down to whether society should protect people from hatred because of what they believe.
The proposal would essentially extend the concept of the UK's race hate laws to cover belief; it would become illegal to knowingly use words or behaviour which are threatening, insulting or abusive in a way that stirs up hatred against an individual because of what they believe.
Give us an example?
Take these two theoretical statements:
Statement one: "I hate Buddhism/Christianity/Islam, it's a nonsense religion that serves no good."
Statement two: "I hate Buddhists/Christians/Muslims - their ideas are dangerous and we need to do something about them."
It is the second type of statement which ministers have indicated they want the law to target. The law's supporters say the first statement would not fall foul of the law because for a prosecution to go ahead the words need to be abusive and intended to stir up hated.
so calling a faith 'evil' would clearly apply
Interesting. So one is a statement of fact as the speaker perceives it and one is a statement of the speaker's intention to act. However, can you discern that an illegal act will follow statement two? I think there are many actions that could be insinuated by this remark that could be legal in nature.
It is basically changing the way you are allowed to speak about issues. I don't like it.
well you have to have some censorship in a moral society
the point is that this is a public forum and calling a faith 'evil' is an attempt at justification of religous hatred.
should I put the instructions on how to make a nuclear bomb on my site ?
should I allow people to arrange a time and place to go and murder christians ?
I have had the Islam is evil line pulled so many times and it is based on picking random quotes from the quran taken out of context
Islam is a religion of peace , for example Osama bin laden is not a muslim cleric and has no authority within the faith to say the things he does , he (and other extremists like him) do not speak for islam and hence you can not judge islam by their words..
any muslim will tell you that
I would not judge catholics by the actions of some priests to molest young children
Islam and terrorism have no connection apart from the fools that comit such acts believe they have the right within Islam to do so .
Now if EB had been more specific and claimed that extremists like osama are evil I would have had no problem
to call an entire faith of billions evil is as sick as the mind of people like hitler
if he was alive should I allow hitler to peddle his hatred of the jews on this site ?
the fact you dont like it is of course noted , but it has no significance in the context of what your defending .
would you defend hitler ?
would you defend people who wish to drop a nuke on the millions in Iran ?
would you defend those who wanted take out israel ?
if you would allow such people to comment then i would see you as just as guilty as them ,for allowing them a platform to spread their hatred.
Lets make it even easier for you M
I assume that it is against the law to possess a terrorist training manual in your country ?
it matters not if you plan to use it , just that its in your possesion is that right ?
if so we are looking at the same thing from the other side ..
why would it be a crime to possess means of encouraging others to attack the state , but fail to provide any protection for the individual
calling billions of people evil can clearly incite hatred in others and hence should be a crime.
you already protect black people in your country , and women , so why not belief ?
or do you think you should remove the protection of minorities ?
First off, I did not share the same views as EB- so that is moot.
"it has no significance in the context of what your defending":
it has everything to do with what I defending. There will always be actions taken in contradiciton to other value systems- its what diversity breeds. As long as the actions are legal, I have no problem.
"would you defend hitler ?":
In what context? If you mean do I think he should have been able to talk about the final solution- no. It was directly linked to illegal actions.
"if you would allow such people to comment then i would see you as just as guilty as them ,for allowing them a platform to spread their hatred":
I disagree with this logic. It is not the same thing to stand by and do nothing and to actually commit a wrong act. I would not want an accomplice to murder and a murderer be tried for the same crime and the same sentence.
I see what you are saying- the regulation of moral concern/behavior in society. I hold law in ery high regard, because I believe people are entitled to their own morality to a certain extent. However, I think government power should be limited to the largest extent possible, while continuing to protect. If we are talking about Hitler- the always famous question is- how did this happen? How did all of the Germans follow along, how did he get support? This whole groupthink psychoanalytical theory is quite evasive. If you want citizens to make responsible decisions, focus on their education, focus on limiting frivolous media accounts, focus on those things. The point being, you want citizens to act without the coaxing of the government- limit the actions they can take by making actions illegal, not words- after all the most beautiful enactment of freedom is when an individual chooses to do right and to be moral because he/she wishes to- not because they were told to.
Alright, you have successfully pinned me. This is an issue I wrestle with daily- where to draw the line between legal and moral.
For example- Nuremberg- do I believe the trials were valid although they were tried for laws that never before existed? Yes, I do believe in the Nuremberg codes. But ask me how I think about post facto law in the US- no I do not think you should be tried for a law this is now in force, but was not when you committed the act.
Bottom line is, under different circumstances, different methods must be employed. I try my best not to support laws limiting such a fundamental right as freedom of speech unless there is absolutely nothing else I should and could target appropriately first and unless it was absolutely necessary. Best I can come up with at this point.
First off, I did not share the same views as EB- so that is moot.
well EB wanted to express his hatred of billions of people where as you think i should allow anyone who has a hatred of billions to express such views
his crime is singular
yours could be classed as multiple
it has everything to do with what I defending. There will always be actions taken in contradiction to other value systems- its what diversity breeds. As long as the actions are legal, I have no problem.
and hatred of billions is of course allowed even though it is a very sick thought nobody tells people what to think , but by allowing such a thought to be put on my site I which is a public forum would be clearly wrong .I do not deny his right to think what he wants , i do deny his right to come here and spread a view of the hatred of billions , where as you think i should allow that
"would you defend Hitler ?":
In what context?
would you allow Hitler to come here and say all Jews are evil and of course the follow on comments you would get that by allowing such a statement ?
I disagree with this logic. It is not the same thing to stand by and do nothing and to actually commit a wrong act. I would not want an accomplice to murder and a murderer be tried for the same crime and the same sentence.
I agree , but if five people went out and murdered someone due to reading a comment that you allowed then each one of them is completely responsible for a single murder
where as (if you knew you were inciting hatred ) you would be partly responsible for each one of the murdersthat is why hitler is seen as the evil he is , but each German soldier would only be judged by his actions
by allowing such a comment to be repeated and enter into the minds of others , just as Hitlers sickness was embedded into the minds of the German people , you are in many ways committing a greater crime .
as for the rest of your comment I agree , I do not monitor peoples thoughts , I do and will monitor what kind of hatred is placed on this site .we have already discussed my refusal to allow the direct attack of people who comment and you seem to understand that . well billions of Muslims are people too and just because none of them are on this site right now does not mean I will allow hatred of billions to take place within my responsibility
it is the same as the ignorant senior officers at abu graahb who claimed they had no idea what was happening , it is their job to know and if they don't know then they too are accountable
on this site I am responsible for what is printed on these pages , anybody who wishes to peddle hatred can do so , i can;t stop them , but i can and will prevent such sickness here.
reply to second comment
I agree , its a tough call and you must have noticed I dont remove much from this site (lately the rate has increased)
but you have to draw the line somewhere.
funny if his comment would have been against black people and i left it I would be getting angry emails for months (and rightly so)
but when it comes to faith for some reason that doesnt apply ?
like i say . EB is free to think what he wishes , he brought (in my mind ) not a single fact or source to debate and they normally come much better armed then that ...
there is a difference in my mind between the hatred someone has in their own mind and the allowing such hatred to be projected through me and my site
absolutely no denial of freedom of speach has taken place , for nobody is free to say anything they want here anyway . all visitors are aware we have rules and either abide by them or express there freedom of speach somewhere else .
I see your view has moved on a litte in the second comment so forgive me if this comes across as strong , most of it was written before reading your second comment..
I am not sure to what extent EB's comments had reached. But I will give you an example of why I think racism to an extent should be shared.
I have friends who are racist (loyalty is not the reason- just hear me out). I am part-Hawaiian and so are these friends of mine. Well, the Hawaiian issue is incredibly volatile, seeing as the Hawaiian Monarchy was illegally overthrown by the US government only a century ago. Hawaiians are still fighting for reparation and a level of independence. These friends of mine have racist views against white people- Hawaiian values are very unique and they believe white people have often corrupted these values. They seek to save their culture, their tradition. Why do I say they? Because I do not agree with them. I am part-Hawaiian but I do not look as people as black, or asian, or white. The views they have expressed are sometimes in anger and they have sometimes said some vile things, similar to that you mentioned. Did I agree? Of course not. But after I was able to debate the topics with them, a level of brevity was attained...we connected and had a level of empathy. Yes they are still quite opinionated, but no they are not actually harming innocent white people. So you see, limiting what one can say can adversely affect debate- if we want to effect the minds of people we have to start with their hearts and we can't do that if we don't even listen to what they have to say.
"I am part Hawaiian"
I kind of guessed you were by your location .IP adress etc etc
In a one on one debate I would agree with you. this site is not a one on one debate , you will note it is read by people all around the world (see map on right) and some of them are muslims , some are american , some are racist , some are not , some are children some are adult .
you can not apply the logic you suggest here , you can in a private conversation , you cant in a public forum .
If such a view is expressed to me in private (and it has been) i will debate the opinion with the racist / fascist or whatever you wish to call them and try to convince them of their error .
In public we have standards and I am sure you would object if I put pornograhy images here but you 'may' not do so if I sent you such images in private.
I am not the state I am an individual and this is a controlled environemnt that anybody with the internet is able to access (unless I have banned them and I have not yet banned anybody ever)
I know you agree with me M , this is not about supression of freedom of opinion , this is about protection of those who are not here to defend themselves. the muslims of the world are not a government or a country they share a faith and that faith will be respected here as is all faiths
(personally I dont have any faith nor would I want one )
I agree- defending those who are not available to do so. However, you can do that and also put your beliefs out there...
This is the difference between you and I. I have naive optimism- I worry less about how I am viewed and such, and more about making sure my point gets across. It gets messy at times, but its my method. I see where you are coming from, though.
And I would not complain if you posted porn (remember, we agree I don't tell you what to post), although I would question why because it is a terorrism site :)
well by keeping an eye on how you are viewed you end up with a much larger audience to put your point across too
by allowing such remarks I would be offending large numbers of peace loving people , by refusing such remarks I am offending racists and fascists .
there is no doubt removing hate speach is the right call to make
as for the porn , you sound like you want me too ... but others wouldnt .
I am happy to lose any racist readership for I have nothing that will convince them of anything
and as you say , your friends are still racist .....
HAHA. Don't read that the wrong way. My comment was made in a purely non-judgmental fashion. If I wanted porn I could just as easily be accessing it on another site.
I think we understand each other, otherwise.
54 comments. Well, I missed quite a bit by going to work...
I shall respond to what was addressed to me and make afew other comments as well.
M, you are certainly entitled to make any comments, non sequitur or otherwise, you like. I don't think there is much risk of you insulting others or making racist statements, so your comments aren't too likely to enter the digital void.
However, there is no need that I can see to rush to the defense of the U.S. military listing benign or even helpful action. A pro-government Cuban poster shouldn't feel the need to list the efficacy of the Hurricane Ivan evacuations on a thread that is (in part) critical of Cuba's human rights record. It would be as if a criminal with overwhelming evidence of his/her guilt in a murder case saw the need to present evidence that he/she was kind to his/her neighbour's cat. That's nice for the cat, but we're not talking about the cat.
EB, glad you and your racist opinions are gone. It's the best news I've had all day.
A law, when it comes to any legal system, could very well be defined like this:
"Something someone has scribbled down on a piece of paper and decide to call a law"
If you mean to say that your approach to the law is entirely cynical, I find that exceedingly easy to believe.
What that 'scribbling' usually is, though, is an attempt to make society just.
If i were in power
Yikes! I can envision the concentration camps already.
and decided to make a law which stated that everyone who have
ever written anything on the internet (except me of course) should be tracked down
and executed you wouldnt think that was right.
Well of course not. It would not be a law aimed at achieving justice, now would it. It would, by definition, be an unjust law. For your faulty analogy to fit, the laws the _H_ quoted me saying would have to be unjust, which they are not.
Or am i going out on a limb here?
As far as faulty analogies go, you are on the ground with a concussion. The limb broke a long time ago.
Acceptable laws must have a rational foundation, there shouldn't be any laws which prevents
people to do anything which is not proven to be of any physical harm to others.
Thus the Kellogg-Briand Pact fits along with Articles 32 and 39 of the UN Charter.
"War is essentially an evil thing"
No it isn't.
Yes it is. The attacked people of Iraq are fighting back, but often in ways that are entirely unjust. Sorry, your dig on the left just backfired.
And the only thing i care about is the fact that there are plenty of evidence
of the brutality and atrocities committed by saddam and his cronies.
Because you are cynical and don't care about Iraqi loss of life. We can all be sure that you didn't say "Boo!" when the U.S. was busy increasing its support for the Butcher of Baghdad by more than 100% for the licences of dual-use items after the Halabja massacre. You never said "Boo!" about the military and diplomatic aid to Uzbekistan by Britain and the U.S. even the though the government there is known to have boiled several men to death and boiled one man's hand until the flesh sloughed off the bone to torture him. No, I feel no shame being a "left winger."
If there can be provided evidence that Bush has given orders to kill or torture
people he KNOWS are completely innocent then he can be put on trial like anyone else
Interesting. For anyone with a moral compass, innocent is presumed and guilt must be proven. If you have followed the news for the past several years, you would know that Maher Arar was send for torture despite his innocence, and most of the prisoners in Iraqi prisons as well as Abu Graib are held without charge. Again, innocent until proven guilty.
Regarding the flap about what _H_ didn't say, what is your plee, poor reading skills or lame straw man attempt?
And finally, no one is prohibitting your speech. You can say whatever you like (not on your blog, Google can take that away from you - you don't own it) on your own site. We, however, not only do not have to tolerate hate speech here, we don't have to endanger the site by having it risked getting flagged and possibly removed by the owners (Google).
When your used up where do you go (video)
Interesting, thanks for posting this.
Living in a State aflush with military bases, I have spoken to many soldiers who came home with this dilemma. Some are distraught because they believe in our country and are willing to put their life on the line for it, but are angry about the justification for the war.
Whether I agree with militarization, wars, etc. the mental and physical duress these soldiers go through is astounding and troubling.
Good book on the topic:
On Killing by Grossman.
I hear you M , it can't be easy for them.