Religion and Terrorism

[Yerda]

I have to apologise. In saying that George Bush 'signed the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands of people in the name of god' I was making reference to much publicised comments made to Abu Abbas. However, having been provoked to read further into the issue it has come to light that Bush may not have made the comments.

According to the BBC:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

It is important to note here that what George W. Bush actually said would be translated for the Arabic speaking delegation. Clearly there is always room for mistranslation, and fabrication is a possibility.

To the best of my knowledge, when asked to clarify the issue, the White House opted not to comment.

So guilty as charged. It was certainly hyperbole. For anyone who was mislead by my oversimplifications; George Bush probably did not sit down with a contract listing the names of hundreds of thousands of civilians who were to be 'disappeared' by order of god.

Grossly dishonest? Well not intentionally. The 'ignorant moron' in me allowed me to take the BBC, Independant and Guardian at face value. However, the 'servile apologist' certainly finds it no great stretch to believe that George Bush both said and believes the comment accredited to him.

 

[Yerda]

ITV aired the quote by Nabil Shaath tonight. He speaks perfect English. No room for mistranslation there then...unless he has bad hearing.

 

[hanif]

I Think So Jackiet.no Religion İs Terror

 

[shytot]

People will believe what they want to hear, and disbelieve what they don't.
that goes for, politicians, religion and stories about people.
If people dislike you, they will believe any kind of rubbish said about you,
if they like you, they will not have a word said against you.
everyone of us is guilty of this, everyone.

 

[ashai]

This is little more than grossly dishonest hyperbole. Whatever the faults of the current operation, Bush did not "sign the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands in the name of god". That you must offer such a distortion is sufficient evidence of the worthlessness and irresponsibility of your position. Furthermore, only the most servile apologist or ignorant moron would seek to draw a moral equivalence between threatening military action against a facist, Baathist regime, and the threatening barbaric action against freedom of the press.

:clap :clap :clap :clap FRUBALS TO YOU!!!!!

 

[ashai]

Jaiket[/B]]Absolute balls. I never suggested moral equivalence.

Is there a fundamental difference between a head of state of a predominantly Christian nation claiming god asked him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and fanatics deluding themselves (most often others) to commit suicide by airplane as a gesture of god's will? (Aside from the obvious derailment of methods and rhetoric between state terror and fringe fanatics).

Ushta
Invading Afghanistan, whenn they were harboring thye mastrer minds of mas murder committed on US citizens , innocent civilians at that, can never, ever be equated to the terrorist act.:tsk: :tsk:

Next following the same reasoning you will be equating serial killers to american soldiers. Its deranged!

 

[kevmicsmi]

Let's ask all the civilians he has killed if he seems inclined to avoid their deaths.

Oh wait!

This is a completely ignorant statement :banghead3

The difference is that if America intended to kill innocent civillians, THERE WOULD BE NO COUNTRY LEFT! You see we have the ability to wipe out every civillian we want to, and dont. The radical Islamic Terrorists do not have the ability to wipe out huge amounts of people at once, but THEY WOULD IF THEY COULD AND IT WOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD.

 

[Yerda]

Next following the same reasoning you will be equating serial killers to american soldiers. Its deranged!

Who knows? I'll be making all sorts of equations, 1+1=18, George Bush+America=tyranny, Jay+keyboard=jokes all round. Did you have a point?

 

[shytot]

This is a completely ignorant statement :banghead3

The difference is that if America intended to kill innocent civillians, THERE WOULD BE NO COUNTRY LEFT! You see we have the ability to wipe out every civillian we want to, and dont. The radical Islamic Terrorists do not have the ability to wipe out huge amounts of people at once, but THEY WOULD IF THEY COULD AND IT WOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD.

All Muslims please take note, that is the reason the west is against IRAN having
the atomic bomb, you may think it's their right to have it, but they would kill
you just as quickly, like a disease, radiation is no respecter of borders.
They would decimate this planet, and die happy.
That is one hell of a religion you have there, so look after it.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Dear Muslims, I beg you all to note that I am not terribly concerned about Iran having nuclear materials as long as they continue to dialogue with IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency under the aegis of the United Nations.

Also, please, Iranians, refrain from bombing Israel.

I am not that fond, personally, of the nation of Israel, but I believe that there are better ways to deal with the tinderbox in the Middle East.

Also, if the nation of Iran dialogues with IAEA, why should not the United States be under the same requirement?

I am very sorry about what happened in Iran in 1953, I believe, when the United States and Great Britain decided to pull off a coup and oust Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had been, I believe, popularly elected by the people of Iran.

Winston Churchill was having a great big hissyfit because Iranians decided that the oil under their land belonged to them, not to British Petroleum. He kept trying to get the U.S. to help get rid of Mosaddegh but President Harry Truman kind of like Mosaddegh and wouldn't do it. When Eisenhower was elected president--he and Churchill were old pals--the coup was pulled off.

Needless to say, this little incident made Iranians very angry. Especially when the wimpy Shah was installed and the U.S. and Great Britain had to be constantly vigilant to maintain the Shah in power.

Frankly, I wouldn't like another nation to come into my country and do that sort of thing although--sigh, if someone could sneak in and pull off a coup in the United States that rid us of George Walker Bush, the idea is very seductive.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Dear Muslims, I beg you all to note that I am not terribly concerned about Iran having nuclear materials as long as they continue to dialogue with IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency under the aegis of the United Nations.

Also, please, Iranians, refrain from bombing Israel.

I am not that fond, personally, of the nation of Israel, but I believe that there are better ways to deal with the tinderbox in the Middle East.

Also, if the nation of Iran dialogues with IAEA, why should not the United States be under the same requirement?

I am very sorry about what happened in Iran in 1953, I believe, when the United States and Great Britain decided to pull off a coup and oust Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had been, I believe, popularly elected by the people of Iran.

Winston Churchill was having a great big hissyfit because Iranians decided that the oil under their land belonged to them, not to British Petroleum. He kept trying to get the U.S. to help get rid of Mosaddegh but President Harry Truman kind of like Mosaddegh and wouldn't do it. When Eisenhower was elected president--he and Churchill were old pals--the coup was pulled off.

Needless to say, this little incident made Iranians very angry. Especially when the wimpy Shah was installed and the U.S. and Great Britain had to be constantly vigilant to maintain the Shah in power.

Frankly, I wouldn't like another nation to come into my country and do that sort of thing although--sigh, if someone could sneak in and pull off a coup in the United States that rid us of George Walker Bush, the idea is very seductive.

Who would you put in charge?

 

[shytot]

I am not a fan of George W Bush, but just for a minute,
let everyone try and imagine what would happen, if a Muslim country had the
awesome power at it's disposal, as is available to George W Bush.

 

[BUDDY]

This is a completely ignorant statement :banghead3

The difference is that if America intended to kill innocent civillians, THERE WOULD BE NO COUNTRY LEFT! You see we have the ability to wipe out every civillian we want to, and dont. The radical Islamic Terrorists do not have the ability to wipe out huge amounts of people at once, but THEY WOULD IF THEY COULD AND IT WOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD.

Excellent point!! I personally am getting a little more than tired of the potshots taken at Bush on this issue. The equating of Bush to terrorists, is about the most morally shallow line of reasoning that I have ever heard, and shows no ability or passion for the thought process. It is simplicity at its most simplistic, and it is pretty annoying. If Bush and those military personnel working under him, had zero regard for civilians, then Fallujah would be nothing but rubble. Civilian casualties would be astronomical, and US military casualties would be minimal.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Who would I put in charge?

Why, I would certainly put Iranians in charge of Iranian affairs but, as far as nuclear development, I would defer to the IAEA and strongly recommend that every nation in the world do the same.

Nuclear development is an international matter and should be under international scrutiny.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Who would I put in charge?

Why, I would certainly put Iranians in charge of Iranian affairs but, as far as nuclear development, I would defer to the IAEA and strongly recommend that every nation in the world do the same.

Nuclear development is an international matter and should be under international scrutiny.

It is not in Americas best interest to let any one meddle with anything concerning our country, so why would we defer to them?

If it does not concern you that Iran has nuclear materials, then you really need to come back down to reality, really its nice down here

you said it would be a very seductive idea for someone to excecute a coup against GWB and again I ask, who would you want in charge?

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Um, should the nation America then feel totally free to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, in affairs that concern only the people of those nations?

Are you one of those My Country Right or Wrong people?

 

[DakotaGypsy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html

March 11, 2006
The Saturday Profile
Muslim's Blunt Criticism of Islam Draws Threats

By JOHN M. BRODER
LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.

Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.

Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."

Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.
She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.

DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."

The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.
But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

(More)

 

[DakotaGypsy]

She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.

After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.

BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.

An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.
Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.
The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.

One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.
"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."

 

[DakotaGypsy]

I ain't too proud of GWB, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Alberto Gonzales either. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11ghraib.html

March 11, 2006

Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare

By HASSAN M. FATTAH
AMMAN, Jordan, March 8 — Almost two years later, Ali Shalal Qaissi's wounds are still raw.

There is the mangled hand, an old injury that became infected by the shackles chafing his skin. There is the slight limp, made worse by days tied in uncomfortable positions. And most of all, there are the nightmares of his nearly six-month ordeal at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004.

Mr. Qaissi, 43, was prisoner 151716 of Cellblock 1A. The picture of him standing hooded atop a cardboard box, attached to electrical wires with his arms stretched wide in an eerily prophetic pose, became the indelible symbol of the torture at Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad. [The American military said Thursday that it would abandon the prison and turn it over to the Iraqi government.]

"I never wanted to be famous, especially not in this way," he said, as he sat in a squalid office rented by his friends here in Amman. That said, he is now a prisoner advocate who clearly understands the power of the image: it appears on his business card.

At first glance, there is little to connect Mr. Qaissi with the infamous picture of a hooded man except his left hand, which he says was disfigured when an antique rifle exploded in his hands at a wedding several years ago. A disfigured hand also seems visible in the infamous picture, and features prominently in Mr. Qaissi's outlook on life. In Abu Ghraib, the hand, with two swollen fingers, one of them partly blown off, and a deep gash in the palm, earned him the nickname Clawman, he said.

A spokesman for the American military in Iraq declined to comment, saying it would violate the Geneva Conventions to disclose the identity of prisoners in any of the Abu Ghraib photographs, just as it would to discuss the reasons behind Mr. Qaissi's detention.

But prison records from the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the invasion, made available to reporters by Amnesty International, show that Mr. Qaissi was in American custody at the time. Beyond that, researchers with both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International say they have interviewed Mr. Qaissi and, along with lawyers suing military contractors in a class-action suit over the abuse, believe that he is the man in the photograph.

Under the government of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Qaissi was a mukhtar, in effect a neighborhood mayor, a role typically given to members of the ruling Baath Party and closely tied to its nebulous security services. After the fall of the government, he managed a parking lot belonging to a mosque in Baghdad.

He was arrested in October 2003, he said, because he loudly complained to the military, human rights organizations and the news media about soldiers' dumping garbage on a local soccer field. But some of his comments suggest that he is at least sympathetic toward insurgents who fight American soldiers.

"Resistance is an international right," he said.

Weeks after complaining about the garbage, he said, he was surrounded by Humvees, hooded, tied up and carted to a nearby base before being transferred to Abu Ghraib. Then the questioning began.

"They blamed me for attacking U.S. forces," he said, "but I said I was handicapped; how could I fire a rifle?" he said, pointing to his hand. "Then he asked me, 'Where is Osama bin Laden?' And I answered, 'Afghanistan.' "

How did he know? "Because I heard it on TV," he replied.

He said it soon became evident that the goal was to coax him to divulge names of people who might be connected to attacks on American forces. His hand, then bandaged, was often the focus of threats and inducements, he said, with interrogators offering to fix it or to squash it at different times. After successive interrogations, he said he was finally given a firm warning: "If you don't speak, next time, we'll send you to a place where even dogs don't live."

Finally, he said, he was taken to a truck, placed face down, restrained and taken to a special section of the prison where he heard shouts and screams. He was forced to strip off all his clothes, then tied with his hands up high. A guard began writing on his chest and forehead, what someone later read to him as, "Colin Powell."

In all, there were about 100 cells in the cellblock, he said, with prisoners of all ages, from teenagers to old men. Interrogators were often dressed in civilian clothing, their identities strictly shielded.

The prisoners were sleep deprived, he said, and the punishments they faced ranged from bizarre to lewd: an elderly man was forced to wear a bra and pose; a youth was told to hit the other adults; and groups of men were organized in piles. There was the dreaded "music party," he said, in which prisoners were placed before loudspeakers.

Mr. Qaissi also said he had been urinated on by a guard. Then there were the pictures.

"Every soldier seemed to have a camera," he said. "They used to bring us pictures and threaten to deliver them to our families"

(More)

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Today, those photographs, turned into montages and slideshows on Mr. Qaissi's computer, are stark reminders of his experiences in the cellblock. As he scanned through the pictures, each one still instilling shock as it popped on the screen, he would occasionally stop, his voice breaking as he recounted the story behind each photograph.

In one, a young man shudders in fear as a dog menaces him.

"That's Talib," he said. "He was a young Yemeni, a student of the Beaux-Arts School in Baghdad, and was really shaken."

In another, Pfc. Lynndie R. England, who was convicted last September of conspiracy and maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners, poses in front of a line of naked men, a cigarette in her mouth. "That's Jalil, Khalil and Abu Khattab," he said. "They're all brothers, and they're from my neighborhood."

Then there is the picture of Mr. Qaissi himself, standing atop a cardboard box, taken 15 days into his detention. He said he had only recently been given a blanket after remaining naked for days, and had fashioned the blanket into a kind of poncho.

The guards took him to a heavy box filled with military meal packs, he said, and hooded him. He was told to stand atop the box as electric wires were attached to either hand. Then, he claims, they shocked him five times, enough for him to bite his tongue.

Specialist Sabrina Harman was convicted last May for her role in abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, but she was accused of threatening to electrocute a hooded inmate on a box if he stepped off it, not of shocking him while he was atop it.

After almost six months in Abu Ghraib, Mr. Qaissi said, he was loaded onto a truck, this time without any shackles, but still hooded. As the truck sped out of the prison, another man removed the hood and announced that they had been freed.

With a thick shock of gray hair and melancholy eyes, Mr. Qaissi is today a self-styled activist for prisoners' rights in Iraq. Shortly after being released from Abu Ghraib in 2004, he started the Association of Victims of American Occupation Prisons with several other men immortalized in the Abu Ghraib pictures.

Financed partly by Arab nongovernmental organizations and private donations, the group's aim is to publicize the cases of prisoners still in custody, and to support prisoners and their families with donations of clothing and food.

Mr. Qaissi has traveled the Arab world with his computer slideshows and presentations, delivering a message that prisoner abuse by Americans and their Iraqi allies continues. He says that as the public face of his movement, he risks retribution from Shiite militias that have entered the Iraqi police forces and have been implicated in prisoner abuse. But that has not stopped him.

Last week, he said, he lectured at the American University in Beirut, on Monday he drove to Damascus to talk to students and officials, and in a few weeks he heads to Libya for more of the same.

Despite the cruelty he witnessed, Mr. Qaissi said he harbored no animosity toward America or Americans. "I forgive the people who did these things to us," he said. "But I want their help in preventing these sorts of atrocities from continuing."

Kirk Semple contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article.