Writer, Harvard professor and attorney Alan Dershowits asks the question: just how do you defeat jihadis to whom killing infidels is more precious than life itself?
"Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.
At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya(sic) --the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: "if you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you."
{...}
Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women -- some married with infant children -- are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders:
"We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: "[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah." Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."
"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."
Professor Dershowitz wonders how the Western democracies can defend themselves against this fanaticism, and without mentioning any ideas on the subject, says we need "new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of Zahra Maladan -- and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her -- decide to follow his mother's demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores."
Actually, I would disagree with Professor Dershowitz on two counts.In the first place, salafist and wahabi Islam has already exported itself to our shores, and since Professor Dershowitz is far too intelligent to think otherwise,I can only assume that he is attempting to redeem his piece with a little taste of the MSG of political correctness. Being a Harvard professor, I can't imagine that he isn't aware of how thoroughly the Saudis have penetrated academia,particularly in the area of Middle East Studies.
The Saudis,through their front group the Islamic Society of North America now own and control the vast majority of mosques and madrassahs here in America,where they preach and indoctrinate young Muslims in militant wahabi Islam. And they have done it with the connivance of American politicians, including the current occupant of the White House.
President Bush, the man who once famously said `you're either with the terrorists or with us' actually appeared at such a mosque, one that was cited by Freedom House as a particularly egregious example of how jihad is preached against the infidel in our own back yard.
The enemy is already within the gates.
The second point in which I disagree with Professor Dershowitz is on the need for new rules in dealing with this menace.The old ones work quite well, although an intelligent and otherwise reasonable liberal like Professor Dershowitz shies away from them.
The US has dealt in the past with fanatical enemies as well as potential fifth columnists on its soil with great success. The way we did it was not by using half measures.
When World War II began, President Roosevelt took stern measures to secure the nation at home.For starters, he arrested and/or deported anyone with ties to our enemies who might have even remotely resembled a security risk. He gave the FBI carte blanche to wiretap,listen to phone calls and intercept suspect mail and transatlantic cables at will to protect the country. I myself once had had tea with an elderly woman who proudly showed me a medal she received after she steamed the stamp off of a letter and found a microfilm dot underneath that destroyed a dangerous espionage ring and sent six Nazi spies to the gallows.And perhaps most importantly, unlike the present administration, he engaged his fellow Americans in the task of security with a widespread publicity campaign warning against `loose lips that sink ships.' Using posters,speeches, the radio and the newspapers, the Roosevelt administration let the American people know that there was a significant security threat that could endanger the war effort and their freedom,and that their vigilance and help was needed.
On the battlefield itself, particularly in the Pacific,our military dealt with suicidal enemies not only by destroying them en masse but by taking the war to the Japanese home islands with a vengeance.There's no question in my mind that if the Japanese had not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US would likely have destroyed a substantial portion of the Japanese nation. As it was, that defeat of an honor/shame culture similar to the one we face today swept away the poisonous militaristic fascism in Japan and paved the way for a new beginning,just as it did in Germany.
As for legislating dangerous ideologies, our courts have been down this road before when faced with the communist conspiracy here in America in the 1940's and 1950's. Those laws exist and are quite plain and provide a firm and above all constitutional foundation when it comes dealing with most to the problems we have in the US with some practitioners of Islam and the people overseas who export jihad into America. And a few perfectly constitutional tweaks would cover the rest.
Lessee what we got, hmmmm? Here a good one, right from the US code of justice, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2385:
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
Those Muslims who advocates sharia law, the Islamization of America, or jihad against Americans who happen to be Jews or Christians obviously fit this definition. Likewise, anyone who gives material support to such causes does too. And let's not be coy about it - any Muslim advocating sharia law in America is advocating the overthrow of the first and fourteenth amendments as well as the statutes mandating equal protection, since sharia mandates inferior status for women and non-Muslims, and as such is in clear violation of our laws.
This also applies to the sort of texts the Saudis are pushing in the madrassahs they control financially and to those fiery Friday sermons preaching death to the Jews.
And by the way, that is NOT constitutionally protected speech.....and the Supreme court has always agreed, utilizing the test of a `clear and present danger'.
The Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense for anyone to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State, for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association. The Smith Act was upheld in Dennis v. United States, where the Supreme court upheld the convictions of eleven Communist Party leaders on charges of conspiracy to violate the advocacy and organizing sections of the statute.
Chief Justice Vinson’s plurality opinion for the Court applied a revised `clear and present danger test' and concluded that the evil sought to be prevented was serious enough to justify suppression of speech.
"If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase ‘clear and present danger’ of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish.
Obviously, the words cannot mean that before the Government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the Government is required."
"The mere fact that from the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners’ activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make the attempt. The formation by petitioners of such a highly organized conspiracy, with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the leaders, these petitioners, felt that the time had come for action, coupled with the inflammable nature of world conditions, similar uprisings in other countries, and the touch–and–go nature of our relations with countries with whom petitioners were in the very least ideologically attuned, convince us that their convictions were justified on this score."
Justice Felix Frankfurter concurred, concluding that "there is ample justification for a legislative judgment that the conspiracy now before us is a substantial threat to national order and security."
Another law still on the books that applies is the Internal Security Act of 1950, which provided for a comprehensive regulatory scheme by which “Communist–action organizations” and “Communist–front organizations” could be forestalled. Any organizations found to fall within one or the other of these designations were required to register and to provide membership lists for inspection by law enforcement, and an accounting of all money received. Members of those organizations which failed to register were legally mandated to to register and some members were subject to comprehensive restrictions and even arrest.
After a lengthy series of challenges, the issue got to the Supreme Court, which sustained the constitutionality of the Act under the First Amendment. Justice Frankfurter in the majority opinion concluded that the threat to national security posed by the Communist conspiracy outweighed considerations of individual liberty, the impact of the registration provision in this area in any event being limited to whatever "public opprobrium and obloquy” might attach". Three Justices based their conclusion on the premise that the Communist Party was "an anti–democratic, secret organization, subservient to a foreign power, utilizing speech–plus in attempting to achieve its ends and therefore subject to extensive governmental regulation."
`An anti-democratic secret organization subservient to a foreign power' - sounds just like CAIR or ISNA doesn't it?
This was again upheld in Scales v. United States.
I think that about covers it, as Tom Metzger and the White Aryan Resistance later found out. And it applies to religions as well. Recent convictions in cases concerning certain rites prevalent in religions like Santeria that involve what US law considers felony animal torture have been upheld, and the Muslim custom of polygamy is likewise against US law - at least so far. That precedent goes back to the admission of Utah as part of the United States, as your Mormon friends will tell you.
Whenever religion has conflicted directly with US law, especially when issues like full faith and credit, the Bill of Rights or keeping the peace are involved, religion has always been forced by the courts to modify its practices.
There is no reason these precedents can't be applied to radical Islam...because they do not attack the practice of Islam per se, but the advocating of the overthrow of the US government and the Constitution, and violent threats against the peace much more egregious than the sort of thing Tom Metzger went to jail over. Frankly,if there are Muslims in America who have a problem with that, there are a number of countries for them to choose from where sharia law, the dehumanization of unbelievers, glorification of violent jihad, Jew hatred and the subjugation of women are considered proper and legal and where they would doubtless feel more at home.
Somehow I don't consider it a loss, particularly when so many terrorist attacks have a local component, radicalized at the nearest Saudi funded mosque.
In times of national emergencies, our Republic has always taken a deep breath, realized that the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact and temporarily abrogated or amended certain civil liberties until the threat was dealt with..after which those liberties were always returned to the people in full.
That's what's going to be necessary to defeat the Death Cult at home and abroad - not 'new strategies' but a return to first principles.
With maybe one exception..a law prohibiting anyone who's been in the employ of the American people as part of our government from receiving money or employment from a foreign government until they've been out of office for a minimum of fifteen years.
Ending the Saudi Government Pension Augmentation Plan for ex-elected officials, diplomats and other government functionaries would be one new strategy that would do a world of good.
12 comments:
Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly
“All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.’’ This comment , frequently heard after the Mumbai bomb blasts implies that terrorism is a Muslim specialty, if not a monopoly. The facts are very different.
First, there is nothing new about terrorism. In 1881, anarchists killed the Russian Tsar Alexander II and 21 bystanders. In 1901, anarchists killed US President McKinley as well as King Humbert I of Italy. World War I started in 1914 when anarchists killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. These terrorist attacks were not Muslim.
Terrorism is generally defined as the killing of civilians for political reasons. Going by this definition, the British Raj referred to Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and many other Indian freedom fighters as terrorists. These were Hindu and Sikh rather than Muslim.
Guerrilla fighters from Mao Zedong to Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro killed civilians during their revolutionary campaigns. They too were called terrorists until they triumphed. Nothing Muslim about them.
In Palestine, after World War II, Jewish groups (the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang) fought for the creation of a Jewish state, bombing hotels and installations and killing civilians. The British, who then governed Palestine, rightly called these Jewish groups terrorists. Many of these terrorists later became leaders of independent Israel - Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon. Ironically, these former terrorists then lambasted terrorism, applying this label only to Arabs fighting for the very same nationhood that the Jews had fought for earlier.
In Germany in 1968-92, the Baader-Meinhoff Gang killed dozens, including the head of Treuhand, the German privatisation agency. In Italy, the Red Brigades kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro, former prime minister.
The Japanese Red Army was an Asian version of this. Japan was also the home of Aum Shinrikyo, a Buddhist cult that tried to kill thousands in the Tokyo metro system using nerve gas in 1995.
In Europe, the Irish Republican Army has been a Catholic terrorist organisation for almost a century. Spain and France face a terrorist challenge from ETA, the Basque terrorist organisation.
Africa is ravaged by so much civil war and internal strife that few people even bother to check which groups can be labelled terrorist. They stretch across the continent. Possibly the most notorious is the Lord’s Salvation Army in Uganda, a Christian outfit that uses children as warriors.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers have long constituted one of the most vicious and formidable terrorist groups in the world. They were the first to train children as terrorists. They happen to be Hindus. Suicide bombing is widely associated with Muslim Palestinians and Iraqis, but the Tamil Tigers were the first to use this tactic on a large scale. One such suicide bomber assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.
In India, the militants in Kashmir are Muslim. But they are only one of several militant groups. The Punjab militants, led by Bhindranwale, were Sikhs. The United Liberation Front of Assam is a Hindu terrorist group that targets Muslims rather than the other way round. Tripura has witnessed the rise and fall of several terrorist groups, and so have Bodo strongholds in Assam. Christian Mizos mounted an insurrection for decades, and Christian Nagas are still heading militant groups.
But most important of all are the Maoist terrorist groups that now exist in no less than 150 out of India’s 600 districts. They have attacked police stations, and killed and razed entire villages that oppose them. These are secular terrorists (like the Baader Meinhof Gang or Red Brigades). In terms of membership and area controlled, secular terrorists are far ahead of Muslim terrorists.
In sum, terrorism is certainly not a Muslim monopoly .
There are or have been terrorist groups among Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Buddhists. Secular terrorists (anarchists, Maoists) have been the biggest killers.
Why then is there such a widespread impression that most or all terrorist groups are Muslim? I see two reasons. First, the Indian elite keenly follows the western media, and the West feels under attack from Islamic groups. Catholic Irish terrorists have killed far more people in Britain than Muslims, yet the subway bombings in London and Madrid are what Europeans remember today. The Baader Meinhof Gang, IRA and Red Brigades no longer pose much of a threat, but after 9/11 Americans and Europeans fear that they could be hit anywhere anytime. So they focus attention on Islamic militancy. They pay little notice to other forms of terrorism in Africa, Sri Lanka or India: these pose no threat to the West.
Within India, Maoists pose a far greater threat than Muslim militants in 150 districts, one-third of India’s area. But major cities feel threatened only by Muslim groups. So the national elite and media focus overwhelmingly on Muslim terrorism. The elite are hardly aware that this is an elite phenomenon.
Source: Times of India 23 July 2006.
Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar is Consulting Editor, Economic Times and writes regularly for the Economic Times and The Times of India. His articles can also be seen at www.swaminomics.org
Hello Akhter,
Thank you for the quote, although I would have preferred your own words about this piece.
So, what's your point, and the writer's? `See they do it too', the way small children excuse their misdeeds by trying to point at others? I hope not.
The writer is also performing a common debate trick, setting up what's known as a straw man as a false argument to knock it down easily.
There are indeed non-Muslim terrorists - the FARQ and the Tamil Tigers come to mind.
But Islamist terrorism is different because its the most widespread, the most deadly, the most common place and because it appears to be sanctioned by a number of Muslims as jihad against the infidel, with the idea of bringing dar harb, the lands ruled by the infidel under th eheel of dar Islam, Muslim rule. If you are a Muslim, you know very well that the Qu'ran itself says that it is the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad on the infidel,and that the last thing Mohammed,the Muslim paradigm said to his followers before he died in 630CE was to fight the unbelievers until they died, became Muslims or `paid the jirzya ( tribute) to Muslims and felt themselves subdued'.
Most,if not all of the Groups mentioned in the article were fighting for political liberty rather than to `subdue' others..they thus cannot be compared apples to oranges.
Also,most of the groups are SECULAR,rather than religious in origin.Th efact that the write chose to label th eIRA as `Catholic' when they are basically secular and in some cases Marxist is a dead giveaway of the paucity of his thought.
Third, a number of the groups mentioned, such as the Irgun, Mao's Red Army etc. are quite different than al Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah because they did not make a tactic of deliberately targeting civilians, let alone make a holy act out of it.
What bothers me the most about an article like this is the implicit point of view that what Islamist terrorists do is fine and dandy because `look who else does it.'
Nowhere does he unequivically condemn what Muslim terrorist do, every day,all over the planet.
The more intelligent of us may believe that many Muslims wish to lead peaceful decent lives without imposing their beliefs on anyone else...but it is difficult to continue to believe this when Muslims like Mr. Aiyar continue to make excuses fo rit an dfail to condemn it for the inhuman butchery it is.
And eventually, if th emajority of Muslims continue to either embrace this ideology or stay slent out of cowardice, they will be tarred with the sam ebrush and likewise despised.
Think about it.
Regards,
FF
Who is the real terrorist?
The Human Rights Foundation condemns the unjustified war assault upon the poor, innocent and defenceless people in Afghanistan. This is an unjust war being waged by the strongest country in the world against the poorest country in the world. The US has contemptously rejected many appeals to prove their case against Osma Bin Laden in an independant international court. Surely the US has nothing to fear if its case is as watertight as it would lead us to believe? Or are the public concerns expressed by US officials about the "holes" in their evidence the main reason for the US to refuse this request. Is George Bush junior any different from his father who said "I will never apologise for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are" (George Bush (snr) ( "The Rogue State", William Blum)
The entire basis for the war is unproven allegations which rightly should have been submitted to an impartial independent court such as the International Court of Justice ( ICJ). It is interesting that the US and Israel are the two countries which have been most reluctant to give their support to the establishment of the International Criminal Court which could also have had jurisdiction.
The U.S. attack is not war but a reckless, emotional act of revenge under the banner of fighting for freedom and human rights. "US Policy, under the banners of freedom and human rights, has led to barbarous criminal acts" Institute for Policy Studies, Washington.
It must be remembered that the attack on the Twin Towers was not perpetrated by the government of Afghanistan. The attack was by alleged individuals. War is a state of hostilities between two countries. Instead of attacking the perpetrators for an alleged "war" on the U.S. ( which the Twin Towers attack was not ) the U.S. has declared war on the government and people of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is so hopelessly outmatched by the superior military capability of the US that it is effectively a mass murder and a slaughter of the innocents. George Bush has said that he wants Osma Bin Laden "Dead or Alive"as in the days of the Wild West.
The U.S. attack on Afghanistan is not even a terrorist attack - it is worse. "Terrorist attacks" by 'freedom fighters' are attacks by the weak designed to draw attention to a just cause and are usually resorted to by people who have exhausted all other means to draw attention to injustices and oppression. Our own history shows that the US and the apartheid regime in South Africa called the ANC a 'terrorist organisation' while we called them 'freedom fighters'. The US has a perverted sense of values: It was the strongest ally of the former apartheid regime in SA and responsible for the arrest and imprisonment Nelson Mandela for 27 years as a result of the provision of intelligence by the CIA to the former apartheid government. The US voted against many resolutions at the United Nations which sought to impose sanctions against apartheid South Africa. This is the same US which claims to act in the interests of worldwide "freedom and democracy"
We must not lose sight of the important distinction between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" or we will fall into the US propaganda trap of demonizing all people (as well as their "moral supporters" and the countries in which they live in and the religion they happen to follow) who have no other option but to use "terrorist activity" as a political weapon. The US has made it clear that it will not distinguish between the "terrorist" and the country that "harbours" a terrorist. What does this mean? It means that any country in which there are known "terrorists" (by the US definition of terrorist which conveniently excludes itself and its allies ) is a potential target for "anti-terrorist activity" The US conducts its own covert operations ( "US terrorist activity" ? ) by allocating a budget of $30 Billion for this purpose. We need to differentiate between "harbouring" a terrorist and the need to request proof of the guilt of a person before action is taken.
History will record the mass murder and terror in Afghanistan by the U.S. ( which CNN prefers to refer to as the "War on Terror" ) as a shameful event in the history of mankind. The due process of law has not been followed and the US has assigned to itself the role of judge, jury and executioner against an entire country. Once a court has found and convicted the true perpetrators of the attacks than the appropriate punishment should be meted out to the real perpetrators. Prior to this any act of aggression and death caused is illegal and is nothing less than the murder of innocent people.
The US is using sophisticated computer controlled gunships in an international posse of countries involved in a wild-west style manhunt to "smoke out" their prey, such passion unbecoming of a world leader purporting to believe in civilised values. What the US is doing in Afghanistan is a systematic campaign of terror on a far more concerted basis than what it accuses the terrorists of the September 11 attack. The difference is that they do not care if the accused is guilty; nor do they care how many innocent civilians they kill in achievieng their military, economic and strategic objectives in the region. An indication of the continuing callous attitude of the U.S. is the reponse of Colin Powel in respect of question posed to him on the number of Iraqi's killed in the Gulf War when he said, "Its really not a number I'm terribly interested in" William Blum in "Rogue State" believes that if a list had to be compiled of Amercian leaders guilty of crimes against humanity, Colin Powel may be one of them. The deaths of civilians in this unjust war is referred to as 'collateral damage" by the US.
According to UN reports the effect of the war has caused a humanitarian crisis potentially affecting between 4-7 million civilians who face not only starvation but the effects of exposure to icy cold weather without any form of heating and medical supplies. The US, in order to mute world condemnation and in an attempt to win over the suffering people resorts to the insulting use of scattering haphazardly food for 37 000 people when those starving are in excess of 4 million. Before the war, aid agencies at least ensured that all those who needed food received it. However the actions of the U.S. has disrupted supply of aid and misinformed the public of the true humanitarian impact of the war reflecting the dishonesty of the U.S. in claiming concern for the Afghanistan people.
The Mute Complicity of the Media
The atrocities committed by certain nations often receive only passing attention. The media attention to the Twin Towers attack was of course necessary. However what is to be condemned and exposed is the lack of any attention by the mainstream media to atrocities of a similar or far greater magnitute in the the past 10 - 20 years, significant of which is the horrendous bombing of Iraq which led to the death of over 1.5 million people over the next 10 years and to this day the strangulating economic sanctions imposed by the US and UN on Iraq are the cause of the painful and excruciating deaths of 5000 children every month. Do you know what the impact is on a mother to watch a child die a long excruciating painful death due to starvation?
Every month 5000 children die in this cruel, inhuman way and the world does not even take notice.
Are they any less worthy of our attention than the 5000 people who died on September the 11th?
Do you know the psychological impact of being in Afghanistan at present when every moment of the day is like playing a game of Russian Roulette? When you have no idea when the next bomb will 'accidentally' miss its target and destroy your home? When you have nowhere to run because the borders are sealed? Besides an entire city in Afghanistan has no electricity and water as a result of the destruction of its infrastructure. This alone will cause countless deaths over the coming weeks. The refugee crisis is mounting and there are several hundred thousand refugees who have nowhere to go since all borders have been sealed.
"We will never see the smoke, and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as Americans" Martin Kelly (see Rogue State)
"It is a scandal in contemporary international law, that while "wanton destruction of towns , cities and villages " is a war crime of long standing , the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused.
Air bombardment is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the antistate terrorists who ever lived.
Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality. In the United States we would not consider for the presidency a man who had once thrown a bomb into a crowded restaurant , but we are happy to elect a man who once dropped bombs from airplanes that destroyed not only restaurants but the buildings that surrounded them. I went to Iraq after the Gulf War and saw for myself what the bombs did ; "wanton destruction" is just the term for it."
-C.Douglas Lummis, political scientist. ( as quoted in "Rogue State", William Blum )
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP?
The Human Rights Foundation intends to inform the public about many issues which are not given prominence in the mainstream media. We indend to further inform people of the facts relating to the crisis which will enable people to make an informed decision. We need your support and help in this regard. You can assist in one or more of the following ways:
a) Assist to distribute information, newsletters and pamphlets in your local area to inform people about the true situation. Please call us if you wish to set up a local sub-chapter of an anti-war coalition in your area. ( Act Now to Stop War and End Racism - A.N.S.W.E.R )
b) Assist by supporting the collections for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.
c) Participate in a "National Conference on Human Rights" in which various organizations will be asked to deliberate over a period of 2 days to prepare a comprehensive well formulated plan of action to assist towards ending what amounts to shameful atrocities against the innocent Afghan population.
THE WAR ON ISLAM
The Book entitled "The War on Islam" by Enver Masud is a required read for any person who wishes to obtain facts about US foreign policy and actions of the US which you will not find on CNN or the mainstream news media. The Human Rights Foundation wishes to thank the author of the Book Enver Masud of the Wisdom Fund based in the USA for permission to print a special limited South African version of the latest edition of his book. His earlier version of this book is available in the U.S. for $ 18 plus shipping (Total of R 300 approx). We are pleased to announce that the Human Rights Foundation has secured the rights to publish this book which will be made available FREE in South Africa. We intend to publish 5000 copies of this book. Donations to defray the costs of printing the book and costs for these adverts would assist the Human Rights Foundation in continuing its activities which have until now been funded solely from our own private resources.
This book is also available in electronic format and the electronic version is also available free for non-commercial personal use. The web address at which this book can be downloaded is at www.twf.org
In this advert below we have publish key excerpts verbatim from the Book "War on Islam" to give the reader a good idea of the wealth of information contained in the book. The book will give answers to the following questions:
a) What is the track record of the United States in regard to respect for Human Rights?
b) Is this war being fought for the purpose of democracy and freedom or is there another motive?
c) Is the use of "secret evidence" by the United States acceptable in terms of the rights of the accused?
d) What is the record of Human Rights violations of the United States? Who is in fact the worlds worst violator of Human Rights and who can be called the Super Rogue state?
e) What are the real motives for US foreign policy?
f) What has been the US position on the formation of the International Criminal Court? Why is the US so concerned about the establishment of the ICC? Have any senior US officials ( past and present ) been found guilty of war crimes and who are these people?
g) What influence does Israel have on US policy?
Thank you , Akhter for being a perfect illustartion of the kind of moral relativism and frankly disgusting rationalization all too common in the Muslim world today...and on the Angry left, as ilustrated by the farcical ravings of the lunatic from academia you chose to quote.
Of course the suffering s of Iraqis was all fault of the Evil Amereicans, an dnot Saddam, who spent what was supposed to be the Oil for Food money on palces and weaponry, right?
That horse manure doesn't fly here, pal.I know better.
Likewise,if there was really a war on Islam, it would have been over long ago, and it would have ended with the Islamist nonsense of the kind you spotlighted and the fascist states that promote it being utterly destroyed. Because that was what the west would be fighting,not Muslims as a whole. Frankly, based on the sentiments of people like you, not only would it be better off fo rth epeace of the world, but better off for those millions of Muslims who want to live peaceful, decent lives and move beyond the jihadi lockstep.
Of course, a major part of your agenda comes out of the woodwork with your last point.
It' ALWAYS the Evil Jooos, isn't it?
Muslims like you are part of the problem, not the solution, and you'll get scant sympathy here.
Be ashamed of yourself.
ff
The Shame of Being an American
Do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians.
Do you know that one-third of the Lebanese civilians murdered by Israel’s attacks on civilian residential districts are children? That is the report from Jan Egeland, the emergency relief coordinator for the UN. He says it is impossible for help to reach the wounded and those buried in rubble, because Israeli air strikes have blown up all the bridges and roads. Considering how often (almost always) Israel misses Hezbollah targets and hits civilian ones, one might think that Israeli fire is being guided by US satellites and US military GPS. Don’t be surprised at US complicity. Why would the puppet be any less evil than the puppet master?
Of course, you don’t know these things, because the US print and TV media do not report them.
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush has told the UN “NO.” Bush has told the European Union “NO.” Bush has told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister “NO.” Twice. Bush is very proud of his firmness. He is enjoying Israel’s rampage and wishes he could do the same thing in Iraq.
Does it make you a Proud American that “your” president gave Israel the green light to drop bombs on convoys of villagers fleeing from Israeli shelling, on residential neighborhoods in the capital of Beirut and throughout Lebanon, on hospitals, on power plants, on food production and storage, on ports, on civilian airports, on bridges, on roads, on every piece of infrastructure on which civilized life depends? Are you a Proud American? Or are you an Israeli puppet?
On July 20, “your” House of Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of Israel’s massive war crimes in Lebanon. Not content with making every American complicit in war crimes, “your” House of Representatives, according to the Associated Press, also “condemns enemies of the Jewish state.”
Who are the “enemies of the Jewish state”?
They are the Palestinians whose land has been stolen by the Jewish state, whose homes and olive groves have been destroyed by the Jewish state, whose children have been shot down in the streets by the Jewish state, whose women have been abused by the Jewish state. They are Palestinians who have been walled off into ghettos, who cannot reach their farm lands or medical care or schools, who cannot drive on roads through Palestine that have been constructed for Israelis only. They are Palestinians whose ancient towns have been invaded by militant Zionist “settlers” under the protection of the Israeli army who beat and persecute the Palestinians and drive them out of their towns. They are Palestinians who cannot allow their children outside their homes because they will be murdered by Israeli “settlers.”
The Palestinians who confront Israeli evil are called “terrorists.” When Bush forced free elections on Palestine, the people voted for Hamas. Hamas is the organization that has stood up to Israel. This means, of course, that Hamas is evil, anti-Semitic, un-American and terrorist. The US and Israel responded by cutting off all funds to the new government. Democracy is permitted only if it produces the results Bush and Israel want.
Israelis never practice terror. Only those who are in Israel’s way are terrorists.
Another enemy of the Jewish state is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a militia of Shi’ite Muslims created in 1982 when Israel first invaded Lebanon. During this invasion the great moral Jewish state arranged for the murder of refugees in refugee camps. The result of Israel’s atrocities was Hezbollah, which fought the Israeli Army, defeated it, and drove it out of Lebanon. Today Hezbollah not only defends southern Lebanon but also provides social services such as orphanages and medical care.
To cut to the chase, the enemies of the Jewish state are any Muslim country not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates have sided with Israel against their own kind, because they are dependent either on American money or on American protection from their own people. Sooner or later these totally corrupt governments that do not represent the people they rule will be overthrown. It is only a matter of time.
Indeed Bush and Israel may be hastening the process in their frantic effort to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. Both governments have more popular support than Bush has, but the White House Moron doesn’t know this. The Moron thinks Syria and Iran will be “cakewalks” like Iraq, where ten proud divisions of the US military are tied down by a few lightly armed insurgents.
If you are still a Proud American, consider that your pride is doing nothing good for Israel or for America.
On July 20 when “your” House of Representatives, following “your” US Senate, passed the resolution in support of Israel’s war crimes, the most powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), quickly got out a press release proclaiming “The American people overwhelming support Israel’s war on terrorism and understand that we must stand by our closest ally in this time of crisis.”
The truth is that Israel created the crisis by invading a country with a pro-American government. The truth is that the American people do not support Israel’s war crimes, as the CNN quick poll results make clear and as was made clear by callers into C-Span.
Despite the Israeli spin on news provided by US “reporting,” a majority of Americans do not approve of Israeli atrocities against Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah is located in southern Lebanon. If Israel is targeting Hezbollah, why are Israeli bombs falling on northern Lebanon? Why are they falling on Beirut? Why are they falling on civilian airports? On schools and hospitals?
Now we arrive at the main point. When the US Senate and House of Representatives pass resolutions in support of Israeli war crimes and condemn those who resist Israeli aggression, the Senate and House confirm Osama bin Laden’s propaganda that America stands with Israel against the Arab and Muslim world.
Indeed, Israel, which has one of the world’s largest per capita incomes, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Many believe that much of this “aid” comes back to AIPAC, which uses it to elect “our” representatives in Congress.
This perception is no favor to Israel, whose population is declining, as the smart ones have seen the writing on the wall and have been leaving. Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who are being turned into enemies of Israel by Israel’s actions and inhumane policies.
The hope in the Muslim world has always been that the United States would intervene in behalf of compromise and make Israel realize that Israel cannot steal Palestine and turn every Palestinian into a refugee.
This has been the hope of the Arab world. This is the reason our puppets have not been overthrown. This hope is the reason America still had some prestige in the Arab world.
The House of Representatives resolution, bought and paid for by AIPAC money, is the final nail in the coffin of American prestige in the Middle East. It shows that America is, indeed, Israel’s puppet, just as Osama bin Laden says, and as a majority of Muslims believe.
With hope and diplomacy dead, henceforth America and Israel have only tooth and claw. The vaunted Israeli army could not defeat a rag tag militia in southern Lebanon. The vaunted US military cannot defeat a rag tag, lightly armed insurgency drawn from a minority of the population in Iraq, insurgents, moreover, who are mainly engaged in civil war against the Shi’ite majority.
What will the US and its puppet master do? Both are too full of hubris and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes. Israel and the US will either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel’s desires.
Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration. Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in neocon thinking WW III was the Cold War) to overthrow Islam in the Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a formalized, secular ritual.
Rumsfeld’s neocon Pentagon has drafted new US war doctrine that permits pre-emptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear states.
Neocon David Horowitz says that by slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, “Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world,” thus equating war criminals with civilized men.
Neocon Larry Kudlow says that “Israel is doing the Lord’s work” by murdering Lebanese, a claim that should give pause to Israel’s Christian evangelical supporters. Where does the Lord Jesus say, “go forth and murder your neighbors so that you may steal their lands”?
The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in histor
Talk about out of date comments by your Asian commentator. The 'Irish Republican Army . . . a terorist organisation for almost a century'. The IRA Official wing repudiated terrorism some twenty or more years ago. The Provisional Wing repudiated all terrorism over a year ago so that they could be part of the Ulster power sharing executive. The point ff was making is that they have repudiated violence having made progress with achieving a democratic mandate and obtaining their negotiated political objectives. Most Western countries and even some SE Asian countries are secular democracies. Muslim terrorism has no time and no agenda for two words - 'secular' and 'democracy'. The Agenda of the jihadist is imposition by force of a religious state even if the majority of the worlds population do not want it and imposition of a religious heirocracy.
Akhter,
In a word, you're full of it.
I knew that you'd eventually start riffing about the so-called 'Jewish control' of the US.
Yeah..that why we give millions to the terrorist, nihilist enclave known as the Palestinian Authority.
There is absolutely nothing factual in your posts, and you merely reveal three things:
One, that you know absolutely nothing about Israel, the Middle East or its history aside from the horse manure you hear from like minded people spouting the same tired propaganda.
Two, that you're essentially an apologist for Islamist fascism and that you totally approve of any barbarity in the name of jihad.
And three, you buy into the all too typical paranoid fantasies in the Muslim
World about a so-called 'War against Islam', waged by Muslim hating Americans controlled by the evil Joooos.
Tell you what, Bubba...if it really WERE a war against Islam, it would have been over a long, long time ago. And further,if you're right,( and you're not) then you have no business bitching about receiving the kind of savagery in return that your jihadi pals dole out every day.
I'm fairly tolerant of opposing points of view here,but I have no time for an idiot, and a dangerous one at that.
Consider yourself banned.
ff
so where is your freedom of speech??? that is why i am better than you being a muslim.
Ohhhh, I can't resist..I'll let this last one through.
First of all,doofus,neither I nor anyone else is restricting you freedom of speech - unless,of course, you happen to be living in one of those countries ruled by Islam and sharia, where they don't allow such things unless you fall in line.
While you may have freedom of speech if you're living here as a parasite in the west, what you DON'T have is FREEDOM TO BE HEARD.
You can shout all day long at a pile of camel dung and say whatever rot takes your fancy for all I care,but this is MY site and MY forum and I have the freedom to filter out bigots,haters and assorted idiots as I choose.You qualify on all three counts.
And by the way,your last sentence reveals much better than I could that one of the chief problems with the Islamist mentality is a presumption of superiority based only on a willingness to commit violence.
As far as I and a number of Muslims I'm familiar with go, that makes you a disgraced to your own religion,and a danger to peace loving Muslims everywhere.
Go rot, and find some where else to spout your ridiculous and hateful nonsense
Great article. On Islam, multiple wives and the US. While it is true that only one spouse is legal in the United States... What the Muslims do is marry one wife here, then go back to Pakistan or wherever and marry other wives there and bring them back. The US seems to look the other way.
They all live together... wives, husband, kids, other family members... Many living on the US dole as they do in the UK.
Our student visa program needs revamped also, to keep Saudi and other countries from shipping their potential terrorists here that way.
Debbie
Right Truth
Hi Deb,
Thanks for the kind words..
You may all find this link interesting
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Sundaram60315.htm
Well the courts did not pass this on technical grounds, however the underlying arguments remain valid anywhere
Post a Comment