More Outraged By the Outrage
Mohammad Gill May 13, 2004
#37 Posted by arjun_m on May 16, 2004 6:00:22 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#36 Posted by arjun_m on May 16, 2004 6:00:21 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#35 Posted by arjun_m on May 16, 2004 3:16:47 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#34 Posted by veeresh on May 16, 2004 9:17:03 am
The Telegraph/UK first ran a story on the Arab/Sudan strife, Muslim versus Muslim, on the 24th of April`04. I watched, and disn`t see any brave people from our part of the woods take this further in our media.
A few weeks later there are some photographs, true or false still emerging, and everybody has their hackles up.
Thank you for your patience.
A few weeks later there are some photographs, true or false still emerging, and everybody has their hackles up.
Thank you for your patience.
#33 Posted by Knowledge123 on May 15, 2004 7:22:25 pm
Salaam Alaikum!
Shehryar, your comments and points were well put.
I also wanted to add that the current situation in Palestine/Israel is a consequence of Arab/Jewish nationalism. Both Palestinians and Israeli`s are essentially motivated by a nationalistic vogue that rubbed off from the 20th century. What is particularly sad is how people in general, political pundits in particular try to link the situation with religion. Such is an intellectually lazy and desultory conclusion to swallow and regurgitate --I say.
--Hakim
Shehryar, your comments and points were well put.
I also wanted to add that the current situation in Palestine/Israel is a consequence of Arab/Jewish nationalism. Both Palestinians and Israeli`s are essentially motivated by a nationalistic vogue that rubbed off from the 20th century. What is particularly sad is how people in general, political pundits in particular try to link the situation with religion. Such is an intellectually lazy and desultory conclusion to swallow and regurgitate --I say.
--Hakim
#32 Posted by Shehryar on May 15, 2004 3:47:18 pm
Romair, the cultural similarities or differences are not solely based on language. Other things such as religion, housing, family values, apparel, food, codes of conduct, etc also make up lifestyle.
The point I was trying to make was that Canadians are not that similar to Americans as you suggested. They have differeneces just as European nations have differences with US but at the same time have similarities just as other European nations do.
And you can pick up Canadians from Americans. I have been told very frequently of my Canadian accent even though I moved to Chicago 10 years ago. Perhaps in the East coast its less obvious, but certainly in the Midwest and West Coast it is.
Canada does not have overt war agendas but Israel and Britain do. Brits very much have been in the game all along. If it were in their power they would have incited a world war III. I think they played a big role in anti-communist movement. However sly, but obvious role.
Israel has been a sore point for mainly muslim world, most of my European friends do not consider Israel as aggressive (they have the guilt of holocaust). And hence, the image of Israel is limited to our views. Countries like India, for eg., has good diplomatic relations with Israel.
And if Canadians watch the same TV, games etc, so do half of the world. You can watch US TV in Germany (even in small town like Karsruhe). They have American restaurant chains in Europe as well as Asia.
You are right about stronger muslim community in Canada than in the US. The reason is that most Canadian muslims are professionals (or atleast some education) and well-connected through various organizations. There is a huge Ismaili community as well. They have more voice and deeper roots there. Because of supposed neutrality of Canada, more muslims there are patriotic to Canada.
Most of the muslims I see living in US are not necessarily highly educated. The ones that are, do not like to get involved. They are simply not organized and lack the leadership to protect their rights. And some are very aggressive, who know not much diplomacy, which further damages the opinions about them (esp true of Pakistanis and some Arabs). Many voice their anti-American sentiments, which does not help.
BTW, the West doesn`t want peace because thats what fuels their powerhouses. In times of political unrest, the rich always gets richer. Its only the middles and lower classes that suffer. And who cares about the middle and lower classes anyways? Certainly not the political leaders.
It would be more logical to have stability and ``live and let live`` policy, but most of us are not really logical.
And please don`t blame everything on the Jewish community. Our muslim community is much to be blamed for allowing others to subjugate us.
The point I was trying to make was that Canadians are not that similar to Americans as you suggested. They have differeneces just as European nations have differences with US but at the same time have similarities just as other European nations do.
And you can pick up Canadians from Americans. I have been told very frequently of my Canadian accent even though I moved to Chicago 10 years ago. Perhaps in the East coast its less obvious, but certainly in the Midwest and West Coast it is.
Canada does not have overt war agendas but Israel and Britain do. Brits very much have been in the game all along. If it were in their power they would have incited a world war III. I think they played a big role in anti-communist movement. However sly, but obvious role.
Israel has been a sore point for mainly muslim world, most of my European friends do not consider Israel as aggressive (they have the guilt of holocaust). And hence, the image of Israel is limited to our views. Countries like India, for eg., has good diplomatic relations with Israel.
And if Canadians watch the same TV, games etc, so do half of the world. You can watch US TV in Germany (even in small town like Karsruhe). They have American restaurant chains in Europe as well as Asia.
You are right about stronger muslim community in Canada than in the US. The reason is that most Canadian muslims are professionals (or atleast some education) and well-connected through various organizations. There is a huge Ismaili community as well. They have more voice and deeper roots there. Because of supposed neutrality of Canada, more muslims there are patriotic to Canada.
Most of the muslims I see living in US are not necessarily highly educated. The ones that are, do not like to get involved. They are simply not organized and lack the leadership to protect their rights. And some are very aggressive, who know not much diplomacy, which further damages the opinions about them (esp true of Pakistanis and some Arabs). Many voice their anti-American sentiments, which does not help.
BTW, the West doesn`t want peace because thats what fuels their powerhouses. In times of political unrest, the rich always gets richer. Its only the middles and lower classes that suffer. And who cares about the middle and lower classes anyways? Certainly not the political leaders.
It would be more logical to have stability and ``live and let live`` policy, but most of us are not really logical.
And please don`t blame everything on the Jewish community. Our muslim community is much to be blamed for allowing others to subjugate us.
#31 Posted by Romair on May 15, 2004 2:22:42 pm
correction #30: `` say this with quite a bit of personal experience. What to talk of anything else, which European country, other than UK speaks English? ``
Which major European nation. Obviously Ireland speaks English.....
Which major European nation. Obviously Ireland speaks English.....
#30 Posted by Romair on May 15, 2004 2:21:16 pm
Shehryar #29: ``The similarities between US and Canada are like similarities between most european countries and US.``
This is definitely not correct. I say this with quite a bit of personal experience. What to talk of anything else, which European country, other than UK speaks English? Are you seriously suggesting that Americans and Germans, French, Dutch, Poles etc. cannot be differentiated.
The only Canadian province that has a different lifestyle, than the USA is Quebec. Canadians speak the same language, with nearly identical accents to the Americans, from Ontario to BC. They watch the same TV, play in the same hockey leagues, laugh at the same jokes. Most major business houses in Canada, that one sees like restaurant chains, car dealerships, hotel chains, coffee shops are all American.
It is ten times easier to pick a Brit from an American, than a Canadian from an American. And picking Dutch, Spaniards etc. from Americans only requires saying hello to them. Or asking them who Matt Sundin is or who Steve Nash is. They will have no clue.....Nor will Brits, for that matter.
``Canada comes out more neutral mainly because it does neither have overt military ambitions nor the resources to engage in militant actions like the US.``
This is partially correct. I don`t think it is the main reason. Israel does not have overt military ambitions, outiside Palestine either, yet it does not come out neutral. UK has about the same amount of resources as Canada (more people, much less land), and no overt miltiary ambitions, yet it comes out non-neutral.
The reason Canada comes out neutral is because its internal politics, and thus its foreign policy, are not influenced by pressure groups, like USA`s are. Specifically for Mideast conflicts, Canada does not have a strong enough pro-Israeli lobby to get it into the wars. The pro-Israeli lobby that does exist in Canada, tried like hell to get Canada to support the USA, and enter the Iraq war. Every Jewish owned newspaper, commentator etc. was on every TV show, trying to get the Canada involved. Yet there is too much of a counterweight, and they did not succeed.
The Muslim community, and the Pakistan community specifically, is far far stronger in Canada than in USA. Hence it can counter the Israeli lobby in Canada, quite a bit. Canadian PMs and federal ministers, regularly show up at Pakistani shows and events and at Muslim events. I never saw that in the USA.
Canada could be non-neutral by just supporting the USA in conflicts, without having a large military. But it doesn`t do that. I don`t think the USA would be too interested in Mideast conflicts, had it not been for Israel. They certainly have harmed the USA more than helped it. USA and its allies could have gotten its oil at cheap prices, peacefully. After all, Arabs have to sell it to someone.
It is caught in those conflicts, which now have a life of their own, and have turned into Arab-USA conflicts, specifically because of USA`s support to Israel, due to the influence the Israeli lobby enjoys in US politics.
This is definitely not correct. I say this with quite a bit of personal experience. What to talk of anything else, which European country, other than UK speaks English? Are you seriously suggesting that Americans and Germans, French, Dutch, Poles etc. cannot be differentiated.
The only Canadian province that has a different lifestyle, than the USA is Quebec. Canadians speak the same language, with nearly identical accents to the Americans, from Ontario to BC. They watch the same TV, play in the same hockey leagues, laugh at the same jokes. Most major business houses in Canada, that one sees like restaurant chains, car dealerships, hotel chains, coffee shops are all American.
It is ten times easier to pick a Brit from an American, than a Canadian from an American. And picking Dutch, Spaniards etc. from Americans only requires saying hello to them. Or asking them who Matt Sundin is or who Steve Nash is. They will have no clue.....Nor will Brits, for that matter.
``Canada comes out more neutral mainly because it does neither have overt military ambitions nor the resources to engage in militant actions like the US.``
This is partially correct. I don`t think it is the main reason. Israel does not have overt military ambitions, outiside Palestine either, yet it does not come out neutral. UK has about the same amount of resources as Canada (more people, much less land), and no overt miltiary ambitions, yet it comes out non-neutral.
The reason Canada comes out neutral is because its internal politics, and thus its foreign policy, are not influenced by pressure groups, like USA`s are. Specifically for Mideast conflicts, Canada does not have a strong enough pro-Israeli lobby to get it into the wars. The pro-Israeli lobby that does exist in Canada, tried like hell to get Canada to support the USA, and enter the Iraq war. Every Jewish owned newspaper, commentator etc. was on every TV show, trying to get the Canada involved. Yet there is too much of a counterweight, and they did not succeed.
The Muslim community, and the Pakistan community specifically, is far far stronger in Canada than in USA. Hence it can counter the Israeli lobby in Canada, quite a bit. Canadian PMs and federal ministers, regularly show up at Pakistani shows and events and at Muslim events. I never saw that in the USA.
Canada could be non-neutral by just supporting the USA in conflicts, without having a large military. But it doesn`t do that. I don`t think the USA would be too interested in Mideast conflicts, had it not been for Israel. They certainly have harmed the USA more than helped it. USA and its allies could have gotten its oil at cheap prices, peacefully. After all, Arabs have to sell it to someone.
It is caught in those conflicts, which now have a life of their own, and have turned into Arab-USA conflicts, specifically because of USA`s support to Israel, due to the influence the Israeli lobby enjoys in US politics.
#29 Posted by Shehryar on May 15, 2004 12:41:01 pm
Romair, I agree with HP.
The similarities between US and Canada are like similarities between most european countries and US.
Only Ontario is similar in culture to America, other Canadian provinces have very different lifestyle. And if you have been living here (in US) for long, you can spot the different accent easily. Canada comes out more neutral mainly because it does neither have overt military ambitions nor the resources to engage in militant actions like the US.
``The US conflict with Arabs is purely an off-shoot of Israel`s conflict with Palestinians.``
No, it is not. It goes way back to the early 20th century around the time of world war I.
When the house of Saud betrayed its own people and took sides with the British and later were able to establish the Saudi Arabia.
The West, even though had loyalties from the leadership, were never welcome by ordinary Arabs. The West wanted to control oil-rich land and the Arabs were not willing to let them. The decision to grant the Palestinian land to the Jews was made in consideration to its central location in the oil-rich MidEast.
Keeping the Jews there served their purpose of controlling the Arab land with political unrest. I think that its the West that controls the Jews and not the other way around. Jewish community is relatively small in number and most small communities learn to survive by cunning and treachery. In the US many Jews are still serving their anglo-saxon masters in exchange for money and power.
The plight of Palestinians is no different from the plight of Bosnians, Albanians, Kashmiris, Kurds etc. It is not impossible for the Arabs to relocate the Palestinians, but the house of Saud does not wish it to be. It will remain in power as long as it has fuel to create unrest in the muslim world. How can we blame the West?
We expect apology from the US for mistreatment of prisoners, but far worse crimes have been committed by the muslims themselves against their own brothers. The formation of alqaeda like groups is not a result of suppression but of aggression. And this aggression is putting us down everywhere in the world.
``Most of the world is still a safe place for American``
Yes it is. It is not safe for muslims anymore. Because they are looked at with suspicion. While a devout Christian can boost about his/her commitment to Church and love for Jesus, many educated professional muslims here now are reluctant to display affection for their religious values. Looks like we are the ones who are cornered. And unless we straighten our acts, we may continue to be cornered.
The similarities between US and Canada are like similarities between most european countries and US.
Only Ontario is similar in culture to America, other Canadian provinces have very different lifestyle. And if you have been living here (in US) for long, you can spot the different accent easily. Canada comes out more neutral mainly because it does neither have overt military ambitions nor the resources to engage in militant actions like the US.
``The US conflict with Arabs is purely an off-shoot of Israel`s conflict with Palestinians.``
No, it is not. It goes way back to the early 20th century around the time of world war I.
When the house of Saud betrayed its own people and took sides with the British and later were able to establish the Saudi Arabia.
The West, even though had loyalties from the leadership, were never welcome by ordinary Arabs. The West wanted to control oil-rich land and the Arabs were not willing to let them. The decision to grant the Palestinian land to the Jews was made in consideration to its central location in the oil-rich MidEast.
Keeping the Jews there served their purpose of controlling the Arab land with political unrest. I think that its the West that controls the Jews and not the other way around. Jewish community is relatively small in number and most small communities learn to survive by cunning and treachery. In the US many Jews are still serving their anglo-saxon masters in exchange for money and power.
The plight of Palestinians is no different from the plight of Bosnians, Albanians, Kashmiris, Kurds etc. It is not impossible for the Arabs to relocate the Palestinians, but the house of Saud does not wish it to be. It will remain in power as long as it has fuel to create unrest in the muslim world. How can we blame the West?
We expect apology from the US for mistreatment of prisoners, but far worse crimes have been committed by the muslims themselves against their own brothers. The formation of alqaeda like groups is not a result of suppression but of aggression. And this aggression is putting us down everywhere in the world.
``Most of the world is still a safe place for American``
Yes it is. It is not safe for muslims anymore. Because they are looked at with suspicion. While a devout Christian can boost about his/her commitment to Church and love for Jesus, many educated professional muslims here now are reluctant to display affection for their religious values. Looks like we are the ones who are cornered. And unless we straighten our acts, we may continue to be cornered.
#28 Posted by Romair on May 15, 2004 12:01:07 pm
HP #27: You have misunderstood my comments:
``There are some common cultural Similarities I will grant that.``
These are the similarities I was talking about. And they are not, ``some.`` They are huge. It is nearly impossible to tell a Canadian apart from an American. Even many Americans and Canadians cannot do it. The only real way to tell is by listening for the term, ``aye`` or the dropping of the sound, ``ou.`` They are far more similar than say Pakistani and Indian Punjabis. Can you name any other two countries in the world that are so similar in culture, looks, religion, values, living standards, etc.?
``They influence elections with their financial clout.``
This is what I meant. American politics doesn`t just work on one man-one vote. It works through pressure groups, lobbyists, think-tanks, media, campaign contributions. If anyone can dominate that, they can punch much higher than their weight, because they can influence public policy. This is what the Jewish community has been able to do. Their ratio in all of the above organizations is far beyond 2-3%.
``The US has a major conflict with Arabs. Arabs attacked the US on 911``
The US conflict with Arabs is purely an off-shoot of Israel`s conflict with Palestinians. 9/11 is the latest event in that. There is a reason that Arabs hate Americans, but do not hate Canadians or French or German. The Americans, themselves, historically have had no issues with Arabs. Arabs want their dollars, and Americans need the oil. Do you think Americans would have been in conflict with Arabs, had it not been for Israel? Or do you think it just randomly started off on 9/11?
``The only way anybody can remove the US president is thru impeachment or thru elections.``
Obviously. And that is what I meant. His party will not win the next elections. That is the technique followed by NRA and AIPAC type organizations. Anyone (Congressman, President etc.) who is against their policies is targeted for the next elections. It is not in the USA`s interest to support Sharon as much as Bush does. Yet he does it, much to the deteriment of his own countrymen? Why? Becuase he needs the support of strong pro-Israeli groups.
``Alqaeda is not a champion of Palestinian rights. ``
Yes this is true. However, the support it has generated amongst Arabs is centered around Palestinian cause. That cause, and its subsequent conflicts, including 9/11 and Iraq war, has turned the Arabs against the USA. This is the anger than Al-Qaeda taps into. Do you really think there are too many people in Pakistan who are concerned about the Saudi monarchy being toppled. I doubt it. But they still support OBL, because they feel he is the only one who is willing to strike the USA. If today Palestinian situation was solved, Arabs and American would grow closer, and OBL would have a tough time tapping into any kind of anger - specifically outside Saudi Arabia...
``Most of the world is still a safe place for American``
I am not sure about this. Most of the world is safe for most people. However, safe is a relative term. And Americans are far more unsafe in the world today, then perhaps they have been before. America itself, isn`t safe for Americans, if one goes by the budget of the Homeland Security Dept. Even the FBI has said that another major attack will occur. American embassies are the most fortified of any embassies in the world. The US President is fighiting a whole election on, ``fight against terrorism.`` Wouldn`t that indicate something?
``There are some common cultural Similarities I will grant that.``
These are the similarities I was talking about. And they are not, ``some.`` They are huge. It is nearly impossible to tell a Canadian apart from an American. Even many Americans and Canadians cannot do it. The only real way to tell is by listening for the term, ``aye`` or the dropping of the sound, ``ou.`` They are far more similar than say Pakistani and Indian Punjabis. Can you name any other two countries in the world that are so similar in culture, looks, religion, values, living standards, etc.?
``They influence elections with their financial clout.``
This is what I meant. American politics doesn`t just work on one man-one vote. It works through pressure groups, lobbyists, think-tanks, media, campaign contributions. If anyone can dominate that, they can punch much higher than their weight, because they can influence public policy. This is what the Jewish community has been able to do. Their ratio in all of the above organizations is far beyond 2-3%.
``The US has a major conflict with Arabs. Arabs attacked the US on 911``
The US conflict with Arabs is purely an off-shoot of Israel`s conflict with Palestinians. 9/11 is the latest event in that. There is a reason that Arabs hate Americans, but do not hate Canadians or French or German. The Americans, themselves, historically have had no issues with Arabs. Arabs want their dollars, and Americans need the oil. Do you think Americans would have been in conflict with Arabs, had it not been for Israel? Or do you think it just randomly started off on 9/11?
``The only way anybody can remove the US president is thru impeachment or thru elections.``
Obviously. And that is what I meant. His party will not win the next elections. That is the technique followed by NRA and AIPAC type organizations. Anyone (Congressman, President etc.) who is against their policies is targeted for the next elections. It is not in the USA`s interest to support Sharon as much as Bush does. Yet he does it, much to the deteriment of his own countrymen? Why? Becuase he needs the support of strong pro-Israeli groups.
``Alqaeda is not a champion of Palestinian rights. ``
Yes this is true. However, the support it has generated amongst Arabs is centered around Palestinian cause. That cause, and its subsequent conflicts, including 9/11 and Iraq war, has turned the Arabs against the USA. This is the anger than Al-Qaeda taps into. Do you really think there are too many people in Pakistan who are concerned about the Saudi monarchy being toppled. I doubt it. But they still support OBL, because they feel he is the only one who is willing to strike the USA. If today Palestinian situation was solved, Arabs and American would grow closer, and OBL would have a tough time tapping into any kind of anger - specifically outside Saudi Arabia...
``Most of the world is still a safe place for American``
I am not sure about this. Most of the world is safe for most people. However, safe is a relative term. And Americans are far more unsafe in the world today, then perhaps they have been before. America itself, isn`t safe for Americans, if one goes by the budget of the Homeland Security Dept. Even the FBI has said that another major attack will occur. American embassies are the most fortified of any embassies in the world. The US President is fighiting a whole election on, ``fight against terrorism.`` Wouldn`t that indicate something?
#27 Posted by HP on May 15, 2004 7:06:27 am
#26 by Romair
Minor factual errors in your post!
Canada and USA are such similar countries.
The US is the largest military power in the world, Canada is not!
Canada is I think 1/10 of the US in population.
Canada is 1/10 of the US in economy.
There are some common cultural Similarities I will grant that.
Jewish vote here is nowhere near as powerful as in the USA.
Jewish vote in the US is NOT ``powerful`` from the election point of view. Jewish are barely 2-3% of the US population. They dont decide elections with their vote. About 70% vote dem regularly and obviously not every president is a Dem.
They influence elections with their financial clout.
America has no conflict with Arabs. They should be mutual allies. Yet it is in war with them,
The US has a major conflict with Arabs. Arabs attacked the US on 911. Still, the US is not in war with all Arabs. All major Arab countries are in the US camp.
One reason the US is in Iraq, is to protect Saudia.
Canada and USA are such similar countries USA, with similar domestic values
What are domestic values- Did you mean cultural values? See my reply above.
In the USA, no President can oppose an Israeli policy, even if he wants to. Even at the cost of losing American lives. He will be out of office in a heartbeat.
The only way anybody can remove the US president is thru impeachment or thru elections. Nobody can remove the president in a heartbeat.
The moment the Israel conflict is solved, all the air will come out from Al-Qaeda, and the world, specifically for Americans, will become a safer place.
Alqaeda is not a champion of Palestinian rights. Its primary political agenda is against the House of Saud. It may claim many things but it has no influence over the Israeli conflict.
Btw, Most of the world is still a safe place for American. Middle East or Iraq or even Pakistan is not the world. This world has five continents and Middle East is just a small part of one continent.
Minor factual errors in your post!
Canada and USA are such similar countries.
The US is the largest military power in the world, Canada is not!
Canada is I think 1/10 of the US in population.
Canada is 1/10 of the US in economy.
There are some common cultural Similarities I will grant that.
Jewish vote here is nowhere near as powerful as in the USA.
Jewish vote in the US is NOT ``powerful`` from the election point of view. Jewish are barely 2-3% of the US population. They dont decide elections with their vote. About 70% vote dem regularly and obviously not every president is a Dem.
They influence elections with their financial clout.
America has no conflict with Arabs. They should be mutual allies. Yet it is in war with them,
The US has a major conflict with Arabs. Arabs attacked the US on 911. Still, the US is not in war with all Arabs. All major Arab countries are in the US camp.
One reason the US is in Iraq, is to protect Saudia.
Canada and USA are such similar countries USA, with similar domestic values
What are domestic values- Did you mean cultural values? See my reply above.
In the USA, no President can oppose an Israeli policy, even if he wants to. Even at the cost of losing American lives. He will be out of office in a heartbeat.
The only way anybody can remove the US president is thru impeachment or thru elections. Nobody can remove the president in a heartbeat.
The moment the Israel conflict is solved, all the air will come out from Al-Qaeda, and the world, specifically for Americans, will become a safer place.
Alqaeda is not a champion of Palestinian rights. Its primary political agenda is against the House of Saud. It may claim many things but it has no influence over the Israeli conflict.
Btw, Most of the world is still a safe place for American. Middle East or Iraq or even Pakistan is not the world. This world has five continents and Middle East is just a small part of one continent.
#26 Posted by Romair on May 14, 2004 10:03:53 pm
dost-mittar #25: ``The oil lobby would press to stay in Iraq whatever the cost, while the Israeli lobby`s purpose has already been served and they would be quite happy to see America turn its back on an Iraq in a mess.``
I probably have the opposite view.
I am not sure, but I think the oil lobby is probably ready to give up on Iraq. It tried hard to get control over it, and it did not succeed. I think it would want the USA to cut its losses now, and move out. Specifically since, because of Iraq, its President may lose the White House. And because, there is no way the Iraqis will agree to see a single American on their soil now. The 10-15k deaths for the Iraqis, proportionately, is equivalent to 150k deaths in the USA. Imagine the impact on Iraqis. I am sure they are far angrier at the Americans, then the Americans were over WTC, considering the proportional loss of lives.
Israel is a different story. One really has to read about the Israeli lobby, in detail, to understand how phenomenally powerful it is in the USA. It is truly amazing. AIPAC (?) is the second most powerful group in the USA, after NRA, according to some magazine I read.
Canada and USA are such similar countries. Yet Canada is so well respected in the Muslim world, and has been able to stay out of all conflicts. USA, with similar domestic values, is hated all over, and is in knee deep in every conflict. Even though it does not have colonial tendencies. I am convinced it is because Canada does not have a strong Israeli lobby, that it has been able to remain out of conflicts. The National Post and the Jewish voters have tried hard to get Canada into the Iraq war, but they have not succeeded. Because, Muslims here, somewhat like France, are too well-established and here Jewish vote here is nowhere near as powerful as in the USA.
In every TV show I see on Canadian TV, the Jewish guy is always supporting the war, allegedly for the liberation of Iraqis, blaming Canada for not supporting the USA.
In the USA, no President can oppose an Israeli policy, even if he wants to. Even at the cost of losing American lives. He will be out of office in a heartbeat. Just like no American President can oppose the NRA. Even Kerry shows videos of him hunting in ads......
America has no conflict with Arabs. They should be mutual allies. Yet it is in war with them, because it has to veto every UN Resolution on Israel and its occupation. All Arab countries have agreed to accept Israel with 67 borders. Yet Israel continues fighting on. The moment the Israel conflict is solved, all the air will come out from Al-Qaeda, and the world, specifically for Americans, will become a safer place.
The whole Bush team - from Wolfowitz to Pearl - that started this war, was nearly all Jewish - some with very strong direct ties to Israel. Even the Canadian guy, who came up with the catch phrase, ``Axis of Evil,`` David Frum, is Jewish (I think). However, they seem to have shown thei traditional achilles heal of Israel and the Jewish community again, i.e. don`t know when to stop and they overplayed their card.
They had a neocon govt. in their control, and could have gotten anything they wanted, from Bush, and the USA, after 9/11/. But they stretched him out too much, and may have created more problems for Israel (definitely more for the USA). Depends on what happens in Iraq. If Iraq splits, then maybe it is weakened, at least for a while. But if it doesn`t split, then it will definitely have a religious Shia popularly elected govt. Much like Iran`s, with strong ties to Iran. It will have proven itself through a battle in which it, ``defeated`` the USA occupation. Hence will be quite popular. I am not sure whether an internationally disliked Saddam was more trouble for Israel, or an internationally popular Sistani and domestically popular Sadr.
My guess is that Israelis would definitely want the USA to stay in Iraq, and control it from the inside. And they will not allow Kerry to move out of their quickly either. Even he doesn`t seem to have that on his agenda. Even though that would be a good sell to the US public......
I probably have the opposite view.
I am not sure, but I think the oil lobby is probably ready to give up on Iraq. It tried hard to get control over it, and it did not succeed. I think it would want the USA to cut its losses now, and move out. Specifically since, because of Iraq, its President may lose the White House. And because, there is no way the Iraqis will agree to see a single American on their soil now. The 10-15k deaths for the Iraqis, proportionately, is equivalent to 150k deaths in the USA. Imagine the impact on Iraqis. I am sure they are far angrier at the Americans, then the Americans were over WTC, considering the proportional loss of lives.
Israel is a different story. One really has to read about the Israeli lobby, in detail, to understand how phenomenally powerful it is in the USA. It is truly amazing. AIPAC (?) is the second most powerful group in the USA, after NRA, according to some magazine I read.
Canada and USA are such similar countries. Yet Canada is so well respected in the Muslim world, and has been able to stay out of all conflicts. USA, with similar domestic values, is hated all over, and is in knee deep in every conflict. Even though it does not have colonial tendencies. I am convinced it is because Canada does not have a strong Israeli lobby, that it has been able to remain out of conflicts. The National Post and the Jewish voters have tried hard to get Canada into the Iraq war, but they have not succeeded. Because, Muslims here, somewhat like France, are too well-established and here Jewish vote here is nowhere near as powerful as in the USA.
In every TV show I see on Canadian TV, the Jewish guy is always supporting the war, allegedly for the liberation of Iraqis, blaming Canada for not supporting the USA.
In the USA, no President can oppose an Israeli policy, even if he wants to. Even at the cost of losing American lives. He will be out of office in a heartbeat. Just like no American President can oppose the NRA. Even Kerry shows videos of him hunting in ads......
America has no conflict with Arabs. They should be mutual allies. Yet it is in war with them, because it has to veto every UN Resolution on Israel and its occupation. All Arab countries have agreed to accept Israel with 67 borders. Yet Israel continues fighting on. The moment the Israel conflict is solved, all the air will come out from Al-Qaeda, and the world, specifically for Americans, will become a safer place.
The whole Bush team - from Wolfowitz to Pearl - that started this war, was nearly all Jewish - some with very strong direct ties to Israel. Even the Canadian guy, who came up with the catch phrase, ``Axis of Evil,`` David Frum, is Jewish (I think). However, they seem to have shown thei traditional achilles heal of Israel and the Jewish community again, i.e. don`t know when to stop and they overplayed their card.
They had a neocon govt. in their control, and could have gotten anything they wanted, from Bush, and the USA, after 9/11/. But they stretched him out too much, and may have created more problems for Israel (definitely more for the USA). Depends on what happens in Iraq. If Iraq splits, then maybe it is weakened, at least for a while. But if it doesn`t split, then it will definitely have a religious Shia popularly elected govt. Much like Iran`s, with strong ties to Iran. It will have proven itself through a battle in which it, ``defeated`` the USA occupation. Hence will be quite popular. I am not sure whether an internationally disliked Saddam was more trouble for Israel, or an internationally popular Sistani and domestically popular Sadr.
My guess is that Israelis would definitely want the USA to stay in Iraq, and control it from the inside. And they will not allow Kerry to move out of their quickly either. Even he doesn`t seem to have that on his agenda. Even though that would be a good sell to the US public......
#25 Posted by dost_mittar on May 14, 2004 8:52:20 pm
Romair:
``However, Americans are driven by other motives, i.e. oil and Israel lobby.``
If my reading of the situation is correct, then there is going to be a split in these two lobbies. The oil lobby would press to stay in Iraq whatever the cost, while the Israeli lobby`s purpose has already been served and they would be quite happy to see America turn its back on an Iraq in a mess.
``However, Americans are driven by other motives, i.e. oil and Israel lobby.``
If my reading of the situation is correct, then there is going to be a split in these two lobbies. The oil lobby would press to stay in Iraq whatever the cost, while the Israeli lobby`s purpose has already been served and they would be quite happy to see America turn its back on an Iraq in a mess.
#24 Posted by dost_mittar on May 14, 2004 8:48:58 pm
malik99:
``Can you really trust Bush Administration with Iraq? Hasn`t this administration broken enough international laws and told enough lies? Do you really think they have Iraq`s best interest in their mind? Is a rapist the best person to heal his victim?
Lastly, would this stop the war mongers in US from going into more misadventures?``
There are no easy answers to any of these questions. But right now, they are stuck in Iraq and are looking for a way out. My point is that it is there cross now and they have to carry it. They broke it, they must fix it.
The UN solution would be ideal but does it have the willingness and capacity? While other countries would be willing to send their troops for peacekeeping under the UN, they may not want to send them for the purpose of pacification of the populace.
``Can you really trust Bush Administration with Iraq? Hasn`t this administration broken enough international laws and told enough lies? Do you really think they have Iraq`s best interest in their mind? Is a rapist the best person to heal his victim?
Lastly, would this stop the war mongers in US from going into more misadventures?``
There are no easy answers to any of these questions. But right now, they are stuck in Iraq and are looking for a way out. My point is that it is there cross now and they have to carry it. They broke it, they must fix it.
The UN solution would be ideal but does it have the willingness and capacity? While other countries would be willing to send their troops for peacekeeping under the UN, they may not want to send them for the purpose of pacification of the populace.
#23 Posted by freethinker on May 14, 2004 6:25:30 pm
Chowk readers may be interested to read ex-President Jimmy Carter`s observations on human rights, reproduced in the following:
Carter says US policies hit international human rights
Fri May 14, 1:09 PM ET Add Entertainment - AFP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US president Jimmy Carter called for a change to tough US security policies introduced after the September 11 attacks which he said had been used by other countries to justify clamping down on human rights.
Highlighting the effect of the Iraqi prison abuse scandal on world opinion, Carter said international human rights groups are ``expressing deep concern`` about the adverse impact`` of new US policies.``
``To ensure that additional human rights embarrassments will not befall the United States, we must examine well-known, high-level and broad-based US policies that have lowered our nation`s commitment to basic human rights,`` Carter said in a commentary for The Washington Post.
``The United States must regain its status as the champion of freedom and human rights.``
According to Carter, ``many traumatized and fearful`` Americans accepted the hard line of the US administration after the 2001 attacks in the belief that ``international agreements and human rights standards`` would be honoured.
But he added: ``These American decisions had an immediate global impact.``
Human rights and democracy advocates around the world had complained ``that US policies are giving license to abusive governments and even established democracies to stamp out legitimate dissent and reverse decades of progress toward freedom.``
``Lawyers, professors, doctors and journalists told of being labeled as terrorists, often for merely criticizing a government policy or carrying out their daily work.
``Equally disturbing are reports that in some countries the US government has pushed regressive counter-terrorism laws, based on the USA Patriot Act, that undermine democratic principles and the rule of law.
``Some American policies are being challenged by Congress and the federal courts, but the reversal of such troubling policies is unlikely in countries where legislative and judicial checks and balances are not well developed.``
Carter highlighted worries about:
-- The extended detention of Middle Eastern origin men in the United States who have not been allowed to see a lawyer and have never been charged.
-- Inmates ``arbitrarily detained`` at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to lawyers.
-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s statement that Geneva Convention restraints would not apply to the interrogation of terrorist suspects.
-- Complaints by the International Committee of the Red Cross about abuse in US prisons in foreign countries.
-- Reports that some accused terrorists were being sent to Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or other countries where torture was thought to be acceptable.
``In many countries, the leaders of human rights and democracy movements represent our best hope for a safer and more just world in which fewer people will succumb to extremism fueled by hatred and fear.
``These human rights defenders on the front lines of freedom are our real allies, and the United States must make long-term commitments to support -- not undermine -- them,`` said Carter.
Carter called for ``basic reforms`` in the United States and elsewhere, including ``restrictions on governments` excessive surveillance powers; reassertion of the public`s right to information; judicial and legislative review of detentions and other executive functions; and strict compliance with international standards of law and justice.``
Mohammad Gill
Carter says US policies hit international human rights
Fri May 14, 1:09 PM ET Add Entertainment - AFP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US president Jimmy Carter called for a change to tough US security policies introduced after the September 11 attacks which he said had been used by other countries to justify clamping down on human rights.
Highlighting the effect of the Iraqi prison abuse scandal on world opinion, Carter said international human rights groups are ``expressing deep concern`` about the adverse impact`` of new US policies.``
``To ensure that additional human rights embarrassments will not befall the United States, we must examine well-known, high-level and broad-based US policies that have lowered our nation`s commitment to basic human rights,`` Carter said in a commentary for The Washington Post.
``The United States must regain its status as the champion of freedom and human rights.``
According to Carter, ``many traumatized and fearful`` Americans accepted the hard line of the US administration after the 2001 attacks in the belief that ``international agreements and human rights standards`` would be honoured.
But he added: ``These American decisions had an immediate global impact.``
Human rights and democracy advocates around the world had complained ``that US policies are giving license to abusive governments and even established democracies to stamp out legitimate dissent and reverse decades of progress toward freedom.``
``Lawyers, professors, doctors and journalists told of being labeled as terrorists, often for merely criticizing a government policy or carrying out their daily work.
``Equally disturbing are reports that in some countries the US government has pushed regressive counter-terrorism laws, based on the USA Patriot Act, that undermine democratic principles and the rule of law.
``Some American policies are being challenged by Congress and the federal courts, but the reversal of such troubling policies is unlikely in countries where legislative and judicial checks and balances are not well developed.``
Carter highlighted worries about:
-- The extended detention of Middle Eastern origin men in the United States who have not been allowed to see a lawyer and have never been charged.
-- Inmates ``arbitrarily detained`` at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to lawyers.
-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s statement that Geneva Convention restraints would not apply to the interrogation of terrorist suspects.
-- Complaints by the International Committee of the Red Cross about abuse in US prisons in foreign countries.
-- Reports that some accused terrorists were being sent to Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or other countries where torture was thought to be acceptable.
``In many countries, the leaders of human rights and democracy movements represent our best hope for a safer and more just world in which fewer people will succumb to extremism fueled by hatred and fear.
``These human rights defenders on the front lines of freedom are our real allies, and the United States must make long-term commitments to support -- not undermine -- them,`` said Carter.
Carter called for ``basic reforms`` in the United States and elsewhere, including ``restrictions on governments` excessive surveillance powers; reassertion of the public`s right to information; judicial and legislative review of detentions and other executive functions; and strict compliance with international standards of law and justice.``
Mohammad Gill
#22 Posted by malik99 on May 14, 2004 1:33:38 pm
dost-mittar # 20 - You wrote ``I am now in the opposite camp, namely those who are against precipitous withdrawal of the Americans from Iraq``
Thats a tough one. Can you really trust Bush Administration with Iraq? Hasn`t this administration broken enough international laws and told enough lies? Do you really think they have Iraq`s best interest in their mind? Is a rapist the best person to heal his victim?
Lastly, would this stop the war mongers in US from going into more misadventures?
Your suggestion makes more sense if it has two caveats:
1 - An international force, excluding the countries which took part in the invasion of Iraq, should take over Iraq for the near term future.
2- The role of UN should be strengthened so that no power dreams of making its ``pre-emptive``wars in future.
3- Its a bit far fetched, but the countries that took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq should pay reparations to Iraq. ALL of Iraq`s foreign debts should be forgiven.
Zain Malik
Thats a tough one. Can you really trust Bush Administration with Iraq? Hasn`t this administration broken enough international laws and told enough lies? Do you really think they have Iraq`s best interest in their mind? Is a rapist the best person to heal his victim?
Lastly, would this stop the war mongers in US from going into more misadventures?
Your suggestion makes more sense if it has two caveats:
1 - An international force, excluding the countries which took part in the invasion of Iraq, should take over Iraq for the near term future.
2- The role of UN should be strengthened so that no power dreams of making its ``pre-emptive``wars in future.
3- Its a bit far fetched, but the countries that took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq should pay reparations to Iraq. ALL of Iraq`s foreign debts should be forgiven.
Zain Malik
#21 Posted by Romair on May 14, 2004 11:14:34 am
dost-mittar #20: What you have suggested may happen, and it may not. Depends on whether an Iraqi leadership emerges or not. I think a religious Iraqi leadership may emerge. For those of us, who are neither secular nor reliigious, this is fine. Because it is better than not having any leadership, at all.
Americans need to move out of Iraq. It is a damned if you do, and damned if you don`t situatio. I think people tend to underestimate how much Arabs hate Americans. Even Americans don`t realize it. I talk to Arabs, and follow the shows on Canadian TV a lot. They all like Canadians. But they hate the USA. In fact, the word hate is an understatement for their feelings towards the USA. It is a combination of hate, disgust, anger frustration and ffear.
Any country that is so hated (rightly or wrongly) by another people can never be successful in occupying it. Nor will it ever be viewed as liberators by the locals, regardless of how many Saddams they get rid of.
The Americans have handed back Fallujah to Iraqis, and it is fine. Najaf will be fine also, if it is handed back.
If Canadians were occupying Iraq, I would suggest they stay. However, Americans are driven by other motives, i.e. oil and Israel lobby. And their internal politics are too influenced by these two groups. If they get an inch, they will try for a yard. If they are allowed to stay, they will again try to establish individuals like Chalabi, and we will be back to square one. I don`t think the Iraqis will stop fighting, until the Americans leave.
The best solution would be to hand over everything to the UN. The local religious leaders will talk with the UN. The UN forces should be augmented with American, Indian, Muslim etc. soldiers.
The breakup scenario will remain, regardless of when the Americans leave.....
Americans need to move out of Iraq. It is a damned if you do, and damned if you don`t situatio. I think people tend to underestimate how much Arabs hate Americans. Even Americans don`t realize it. I talk to Arabs, and follow the shows on Canadian TV a lot. They all like Canadians. But they hate the USA. In fact, the word hate is an understatement for their feelings towards the USA. It is a combination of hate, disgust, anger frustration and ffear.
Any country that is so hated (rightly or wrongly) by another people can never be successful in occupying it. Nor will it ever be viewed as liberators by the locals, regardless of how many Saddams they get rid of.
The Americans have handed back Fallujah to Iraqis, and it is fine. Najaf will be fine also, if it is handed back.
If Canadians were occupying Iraq, I would suggest they stay. However, Americans are driven by other motives, i.e. oil and Israel lobby. And their internal politics are too influenced by these two groups. If they get an inch, they will try for a yard. If they are allowed to stay, they will again try to establish individuals like Chalabi, and we will be back to square one. I don`t think the Iraqis will stop fighting, until the Americans leave.
The best solution would be to hand over everything to the UN. The local religious leaders will talk with the UN. The UN forces should be augmented with American, Indian, Muslim etc. soldiers.
The breakup scenario will remain, regardless of when the Americans leave.....
#20 Posted by dost_mittar on May 14, 2004 6:42:28 am
nasah:
Aap kab se musalmaan ban gaye bhai jaan? :)
Welcome back!
All said and done, I am now in the opposite camp, namely those who are against precipitous withdrawal of the Americans from Iraq, my strong invasion of their criminal invasion notwithstanding. I strongly feel that Americans will be committing another crime if they leave Iraq without ensuring the stability and integrity of the country they are occupying.
It does not take a rocket genius to speculate on what will happen if the US withdraws without another authority in a position to take its place. I dont know if the UN would be keen to take over from the Americans and even if it does, it would need the continuous support of the American troops. In the current situation, I dont see why other countries would be willing to risk their troops even under the UN supervision.
If the US leaves, it will be a free for all between the shia and sunni militias. The Kurds will declare their Kurdistan. Turkey will intervene to prevent that from happening and to probably assist the beleagured Sunnis, and Iran can be counted upon to assist the shias in the south. In other words, a messy, bloody civil war with support from outsiders. The only ones who are salivating at this outcome are those who do not want a strong Iraq in the middle east, i.e., the very neocons who are advising the Bush administration. Has anyone noticed that the same neocon journalists who were vociferous in support of an invasion of Iraq are now advocating a hasty withdrawal? Does it take a genius to see which country will benefit from a civil war and a partitioning of Iraq? When will the Arabs ever learn?
Aap kab se musalmaan ban gaye bhai jaan? :)
Welcome back!
All said and done, I am now in the opposite camp, namely those who are against precipitous withdrawal of the Americans from Iraq, my strong invasion of their criminal invasion notwithstanding. I strongly feel that Americans will be committing another crime if they leave Iraq without ensuring the stability and integrity of the country they are occupying.
It does not take a rocket genius to speculate on what will happen if the US withdraws without another authority in a position to take its place. I dont know if the UN would be keen to take over from the Americans and even if it does, it would need the continuous support of the American troops. In the current situation, I dont see why other countries would be willing to risk their troops even under the UN supervision.
If the US leaves, it will be a free for all between the shia and sunni militias. The Kurds will declare their Kurdistan. Turkey will intervene to prevent that from happening and to probably assist the beleagured Sunnis, and Iran can be counted upon to assist the shias in the south. In other words, a messy, bloody civil war with support from outsiders. The only ones who are salivating at this outcome are those who do not want a strong Iraq in the middle east, i.e., the very neocons who are advising the Bush administration. Has anyone noticed that the same neocon journalists who were vociferous in support of an invasion of Iraq are now advocating a hasty withdrawal? Does it take a genius to see which country will benefit from a civil war and a partitioning of Iraq? When will the Arabs ever learn?
#19 Posted by nasah on May 14, 2004 6:15:22 am
Here is one Muslim`s outrage:
Posted: May 11, 2004 10:29 PM
Reply
````My name is Nick Burg, my father`s name is Michael, my mother`s name is Susan,`` the man said on the video. ``I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ...Philaphedelia.``
After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting ``Allahu Akbar!`` ``God is great.`` They then held the head out before the camera.``(Reuter)
now it is the turn of the Muslim Barbarians -- beheading an inncocent American man -- on camera -- and shouting -- ``God is Great``???
The god of Barbarians is NOT Great -- and will NEVER be great......whether of Christianity -- or of Judiasm -- OR OF Islam.....
the Christians, the Jews -- AND the Muslims -- who TORTURE and KILL inncocent people -- they ALL will burn in the SAME HELL.....till Eternity -- scorned and abandoned by their real God...
let me say this to my Muslims Brethren -- if there is a degree of Barbarisms that can be measured in some way -- we Muslims accumulatively -- are the worst Barbarians of this entire world....
hasan
(SAT)
#18 Posted by dost_mittar on May 14, 2004 3:46:26 am
I am not outraged by the US outrage against the terrible human rights abuses their soldiers have committed in Iraq. This outrage is the only redeeming feature in a civilized society. And yes, that man with the grimacy-grin must follow up his ``owning`` up of the responsibility with the honourable thing to do -leave his office. The neocons have destroyed the reputation of America beyond repair not only among Arabs and Muslims but also among people who respect a rule of international law and justice.
But I am also disappointed with the underwhelming outrage of the Muslim world at the barabaric beheading of Berg by people ritually slaughtering a man, reciting the name of Allah, and doing so in the name of the honour and dignity of the muslims of the world. Why doesn`t someone issue a fatwa against these barbarians whose act is so heinous that most of us wouldn`t even think of visiting the website to watch the horrific act?
But I am also disappointed with the underwhelming outrage of the Muslim world at the barabaric beheading of Berg by people ritually slaughtering a man, reciting the name of Allah, and doing so in the name of the honour and dignity of the muslims of the world. Why doesn`t someone issue a fatwa against these barbarians whose act is so heinous that most of us wouldn`t even think of visiting the website to watch the horrific act?
#17 Posted by HP on May 14, 2004 12:02:42 am
It seems to me that Rumsfeld is on a farewell trip to Iraq.
Here is his speech in Iraq:
``One day you`re gonna look back, and you`re gonna be proud of your service, and you`re gonna say it was worth it,`` said Rumsfeld in a voice solemn with emotion.
declaring that ``the United States is the ... best hope of humankind.``
``I`m a survivor,`` he said. He brushed aside media criticism as shortsighted. ``I`ve stopped reading newspapers,`` he said to a round of applause.``
Read full story here.
It is clear that there is a huge infighting going on within the admin. CSmonitor is hinting at clash between the Army brass and the civvies in the DoD. It may be a little higher up then that.
Lets look at the events in the last couple of weeks.
The US army and DoD had abu ghraib pictures since Jan this year. A sample group of pictures were released to CBS in early April or Late March. Obviously it was an inside job and pictures were given to CBS by some Deep Throat. How else CBS would get hold of those pictures?
Granted, there is a story out that some accused army persons lawyer gave those pictures to CBS but that is not plausible as the army would not hand over those pictures to any body knowing the potential for trouble those pictures would cause. As we all know they did. (The lawyer for Lyndie England still hasnt got pictures despite his requests.)
The pictures were finally shown on CBS 60 Mins. after some give and take between Gen. Mayer and Dan Rather at CBS.
The other group, ostensibly a pro Rumsfeld group, comes out with the Berg beheading. The video is released to the still unknown Arab website with in a short period of beheading. (There is no blood shown in the whole video. But that is not the point here.)
CNN and other pro admin media are building the story for the last two days to counter the Abu Ghraib story.
Rumsfeld goes on to say on the Senate floor that there are other pictures out there. It seems that he does not know who has them and when they would be released or they would just be used to get his resignation.
Within the last 2-3 days Powell distanced himself from the admin saying he had briefed the president. He appears to be totally cut off from the WH kitchen Cabinet as he was not in the decision to request another $25b from the congress.
Now the question is when Rummy would leave; right after he comes back from Iraq or waits for another set of pictures to be released.
Am I building a conspiracy theory here or somebody else out there thinks the way I am thinking?
Here is his speech in Iraq:
``One day you`re gonna look back, and you`re gonna be proud of your service, and you`re gonna say it was worth it,`` said Rumsfeld in a voice solemn with emotion.
declaring that ``the United States is the ... best hope of humankind.``
``I`m a survivor,`` he said. He brushed aside media criticism as shortsighted. ``I`ve stopped reading newspapers,`` he said to a round of applause.``
Read full story here.
It is clear that there is a huge infighting going on within the admin. CSmonitor is hinting at clash between the Army brass and the civvies in the DoD. It may be a little higher up then that.
Lets look at the events in the last couple of weeks.
The US army and DoD had abu ghraib pictures since Jan this year. A sample group of pictures were released to CBS in early April or Late March. Obviously it was an inside job and pictures were given to CBS by some Deep Throat. How else CBS would get hold of those pictures?
Granted, there is a story out that some accused army persons lawyer gave those pictures to CBS but that is not plausible as the army would not hand over those pictures to any body knowing the potential for trouble those pictures would cause. As we all know they did. (The lawyer for Lyndie England still hasnt got pictures despite his requests.)
The pictures were finally shown on CBS 60 Mins. after some give and take between Gen. Mayer and Dan Rather at CBS.
The other group, ostensibly a pro Rumsfeld group, comes out with the Berg beheading. The video is released to the still unknown Arab website with in a short period of beheading. (There is no blood shown in the whole video. But that is not the point here.)
CNN and other pro admin media are building the story for the last two days to counter the Abu Ghraib story.
Rumsfeld goes on to say on the Senate floor that there are other pictures out there. It seems that he does not know who has them and when they would be released or they would just be used to get his resignation.
Within the last 2-3 days Powell distanced himself from the admin saying he had briefed the president. He appears to be totally cut off from the WH kitchen Cabinet as he was not in the decision to request another $25b from the congress.
Now the question is when Rummy would leave; right after he comes back from Iraq or waits for another set of pictures to be released.
Am I building a conspiracy theory here or somebody else out there thinks the way I am thinking?
#16 Posted by malik99 on May 13, 2004 9:45:31 pm
Is it just me, or does any one else also feel that a key piece of information is missing from the Berg`s execution details.
The purported website which showed the execution of Berg is termed as a ``clearing house`` of al-qaeda terrorists by US government. Apparently it has also posted threats of terrorism in the past as well. Now my questions simply are these:
- who is making the monthly / yearly payment for the domain name of this website?
- where is the domain name registered? Apparently the body that registers ALL domain names in the world is headquartered in Virginia (Is it called Network Solutions?)
- where is the server housing this website located?
- Why is US government not going after the operators of this website. There is a reasonable chance that the operators of these websites are key players of al-qaeda. Also, the mystery of WHO killed Berg could be solved by capturing the operators of website and asking them where they got the video of execution from. And narrowing the location of where the messages on this website are posted from is NOT difficult at all. This could be easily done by tracing the IP address.
Does anyone else has information that could help me understand this?
Zain Malik
The purported website which showed the execution of Berg is termed as a ``clearing house`` of al-qaeda terrorists by US government. Apparently it has also posted threats of terrorism in the past as well. Now my questions simply are these:
- who is making the monthly / yearly payment for the domain name of this website?
- where is the domain name registered? Apparently the body that registers ALL domain names in the world is headquartered in Virginia (Is it called Network Solutions?)
- where is the server housing this website located?
- Why is US government not going after the operators of this website. There is a reasonable chance that the operators of these websites are key players of al-qaeda. Also, the mystery of WHO killed Berg could be solved by capturing the operators of website and asking them where they got the video of execution from. And narrowing the location of where the messages on this website are posted from is NOT difficult at all. This could be easily done by tracing the IP address.
Does anyone else has information that could help me understand this?
Zain Malik
#15 Posted by nasah on May 13, 2004 9:39:14 pm
````I think the people of the United States of America need to know what the fate of their sons and daughters might be in the hands of the Bush administration.``
(Michael Berg)
(Michael Berg)
#14 Posted by nasah on May 13, 2004 9:39:14 pm
``The Bush hawks, so fixated on making the Middle East look more like America, have made America look un-American. (Maureen Dowd, Op-Ed, The New York Times, May 13, 2004) ``
a better way to say the same may be:
The Bush hawks, so fixated on making the Middle East look more like America, have made America look more like the Middle East.....in Iraq.
a better way to say the same may be:
The Bush hawks, so fixated on making the Middle East look more like America, have made America look more like the Middle East.....in Iraq.
#13 Posted by nasah on May 13, 2004 8:14:27 pm
Here is Berg`s FATHER speaking like a true American Father about his True American son:
Berg died for Bush, Rumsfeld `sins` - father
By Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA, May 13 (Reuters) - The father of Nick Berg, the American beheaded in Iraq, directly blamed U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday for his son`s death.
``My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this,`` Berg said in an interview with radio station KYW-AM two days after a video showing the execution of his son was shown on an Islamist Web site.
In the interview from outside his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a seething Michael Berg also said his 26-year-old son, a civilian contractor, probably would have felt positive, even about his executioners, until the last minute.
``I am sure that he only saw the good in his captors until the last second of his life,`` Berg said. ``They did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend.``
#12 Posted by anil on May 13, 2004 8:10:46 pm
``More Outraged By the Outrage``
This is such an appropriate title. Yesterday, while driving to New Jersey from Boston, the radio dial ``seeked`` at a station that was playing the audio of murder of Nicholas Berg. After listening to this 30 second audio I was sickened and shocked. The mixed chants of ``Allah O Akbar`` and ``screams`` of Nicholas Berg being halaled (could they not have finished the murder with one hard blow) were simply too much. I wondered if it is about ``religion v religion``, ``clash of civilization`` or it truly is clash of civility and savagry. I see reems of comments and strategic redunancy being expressed by muslim intellectuals, however, their silence is deafening. One American muslim called into this radio station, and said that he had seen the web-site and after wards he could not do the work for the entire day.
Why no outrage at the web-site which put such an example of human savagry on Internet, and calling itself Islamic web-site? It is clear that what many christians did against the slavery. I would like to know what would muslims do against such savagry being committed with ``Allah o Akbar`` chants, and posted on Islamic web-site.
Does defeaning silence of muslims here indicates the gulf between savagry and civility? Human Civilization (Islamic, or Christian) have always prevailed and will always prevail over such savagry.
Can reems of strategic redunancy or Limbaugh analysis can contain the momentum of human civilization to stop savagry? Can we not say that a non-violent prophet is badly needed rather than born agains?
Anil Kapuria
This is such an appropriate title. Yesterday, while driving to New Jersey from Boston, the radio dial ``seeked`` at a station that was playing the audio of murder of Nicholas Berg. After listening to this 30 second audio I was sickened and shocked. The mixed chants of ``Allah O Akbar`` and ``screams`` of Nicholas Berg being halaled (could they not have finished the murder with one hard blow) were simply too much. I wondered if it is about ``religion v religion``, ``clash of civilization`` or it truly is clash of civility and savagry. I see reems of comments and strategic redunancy being expressed by muslim intellectuals, however, their silence is deafening. One American muslim called into this radio station, and said that he had seen the web-site and after wards he could not do the work for the entire day.
Why no outrage at the web-site which put such an example of human savagry on Internet, and calling itself Islamic web-site? It is clear that what many christians did against the slavery. I would like to know what would muslims do against such savagry being committed with ``Allah o Akbar`` chants, and posted on Islamic web-site.
Does defeaning silence of muslims here indicates the gulf between savagry and civility? Human Civilization (Islamic, or Christian) have always prevailed and will always prevail over such savagry.
Can reems of strategic redunancy or Limbaugh analysis can contain the momentum of human civilization to stop savagry? Can we not say that a non-violent prophet is badly needed rather than born agains?
Anil Kapuria
#11 Posted by nasah on May 13, 2004 8:10:46 pm
Bun chalay Sri Vajpayee.....Modi jaisa Bhai...
.....time for the Ring Master to retire to Modi Nagar...the Resting Place for Masked Politicians.......and give some araam -- to those TWo weak Knees of his -- after riding TWO Horses simultaneously ......in the Hindutva Circus....for full four years...
what a great country India really is -- and what a smart alek the rural electorate...really is....bravo.....
....we did not fight the British Dogs -- and wrest the country from their Colonial Canine Teeth -- to give it to the Hindutva Vultures.....
.........this is called Democracy with a capital D...
Now it`s time for regime change in Pakistan as well.....time.....Musharraf started packing -- and head....either for the Barrack.......or for the dock ...
.....time for the Ring Master to retire to Modi Nagar...the Resting Place for Masked Politicians.......and give some araam -- to those TWo weak Knees of his -- after riding TWO Horses simultaneously ......in the Hindutva Circus....for full four years...
what a great country India really is -- and what a smart alek the rural electorate...really is....bravo.....
....we did not fight the British Dogs -- and wrest the country from their Colonial Canine Teeth -- to give it to the Hindutva Vultures.....
.........this is called Democracy with a capital D...
Now it`s time for regime change in Pakistan as well.....time.....Musharraf started packing -- and head....either for the Barrack.......or for the dock ...
#10 Posted by HisExcellency on May 13, 2004 8:10:46 pm
re: #2 by malyck
You are basically saying that we should judge American actions outside the context of Geneva convention... judge these actions against the standards set by Saddam Hussain.
But Saddam Hussain had no standards. He was a dictator who gassed his own people and amassed billions of $$ from Iraq`s oil. On the other hand, America claims to be a liberator and a champion of human rights, liberty, and human dignity.
This is a question of moral equivalency. These pictures have demonstrated that American forces only display civilized behavior when the camera lights are on. When journalists and cameramen are not watching, these forces are no more civilized than any African militia. These photos are a public relations disaster for America. Now the Americans need to change tack and adopt a softer, velvet touch approach toward Iraq in particular and the Muslim world in general... instead of the angry approach that has backfired since 9/11.
You are basically saying that we should judge American actions outside the context of Geneva convention... judge these actions against the standards set by Saddam Hussain.
But Saddam Hussain had no standards. He was a dictator who gassed his own people and amassed billions of $$ from Iraq`s oil. On the other hand, America claims to be a liberator and a champion of human rights, liberty, and human dignity.
This is a question of moral equivalency. These pictures have demonstrated that American forces only display civilized behavior when the camera lights are on. When journalists and cameramen are not watching, these forces are no more civilized than any African militia. These photos are a public relations disaster for America. Now the Americans need to change tack and adopt a softer, velvet touch approach toward Iraq in particular and the Muslim world in general... instead of the angry approach that has backfired since 9/11.
#9 Posted by nasah on May 13, 2004 8:10:46 pm
bongdongs its already been answered in previous posts -- in case you didnt realize i am not dawn`s official spokesman on this site, though the queries i have had to answer in the past might suggest that
#8 Posted by nasah on May 13, 2004 7:02:02 pm
TODAY -- India is INDEED Shining -- in Rainbow Colors -- NOT in Jaudiced/Saffron crap....
#7 Posted by Knowledge123 on May 13, 2004 7:02:02 pm
Salaam Alaikum!
As a Muslim with a heavy, heavy heart, I am outraged and disgusted at the enormity of such barbarous acts. Action needs to be carried out on the perpetrators and questions need thorough explanation. Although I am broken hearted at the sightings of what the American soldiers have done, I must express my dismay at much of the Arab/Muslim world. Most of the Arab regimes cozy up with this vile and nefarious assiduity and make no effort whatsoever to halt it. Muslims in general, Arab nations in particular must not only condemn future pornography of this nature but also make an unrelenting effort to end such in our ``Dar-al-Islam/ Dar-al-Araby``. To pretend this is only an ``American`` problem is to willfully ignore the obvious and to forever bury one`s head in the sands of Iraq.
-Hakim
As a Muslim with a heavy, heavy heart, I am outraged and disgusted at the enormity of such barbarous acts. Action needs to be carried out on the perpetrators and questions need thorough explanation. Although I am broken hearted at the sightings of what the American soldiers have done, I must express my dismay at much of the Arab/Muslim world. Most of the Arab regimes cozy up with this vile and nefarious assiduity and make no effort whatsoever to halt it. Muslims in general, Arab nations in particular must not only condemn future pornography of this nature but also make an unrelenting effort to end such in our ``Dar-al-Islam/ Dar-al-Araby``. To pretend this is only an ``American`` problem is to willfully ignore the obvious and to forever bury one`s head in the sands of Iraq.
-Hakim
#6 Posted by kaurasach on May 13, 2004 3:04:01 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#5 Posted by kaurasach on May 13, 2004 2:03:58 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#4 Posted by malik99 on May 13, 2004 2:03:58 pm
kaurasach # 3 - There is no conflict between the two ``ideologies`` [islam, west] that you mentioned. This percieved conflict is a wishful thinking on the part of war mongers only (on both sides).
As for your point that ``Bush underestimated the response of the Islamic extremists and their far spread web of terror`` - this is quite funny. First of all the people who are fighting back against occupation are doing so to gain their freedom. Hence, they cannot be termed ``islamic extremists``. They could very well have been swiss, or french. Secondly, no Iraqi in history ever crossed the atlantic to attack US. Its the US that went there to kill Iraqis against all laws, against all reason, and without any legal or moral justification. So your associating the term ``terror`` for iraqis only shows your feeble grasp of the reality. I am sure if your mother was being strip searched on a check point in your home country, you will know exactly what I mean. You will fight back too. Trust me you will.
Then you say that this war ``is a stupid mistake because it was ill planned and poorly executed.`` No sir, this is an illegal war, an immoral war, an evil war - regardless of its planning and execution. And its not the low level soldiers who should be reprimanded for the rapes of Iraqi prisoners. Its should be the high level people who raped a country, raped the humanity of its dignity, raped UN, raped the standing of US in the world, with complete disregard of human suffering for american soldiers and iraqi people who should be brought to justice.
As for your point that ``Bush underestimated the response of the Islamic extremists and their far spread web of terror`` - this is quite funny. First of all the people who are fighting back against occupation are doing so to gain their freedom. Hence, they cannot be termed ``islamic extremists``. They could very well have been swiss, or french. Secondly, no Iraqi in history ever crossed the atlantic to attack US. Its the US that went there to kill Iraqis against all laws, against all reason, and without any legal or moral justification. So your associating the term ``terror`` for iraqis only shows your feeble grasp of the reality. I am sure if your mother was being strip searched on a check point in your home country, you will know exactly what I mean. You will fight back too. Trust me you will.
Then you say that this war ``is a stupid mistake because it was ill planned and poorly executed.`` No sir, this is an illegal war, an immoral war, an evil war - regardless of its planning and execution. And its not the low level soldiers who should be reprimanded for the rapes of Iraqi prisoners. Its should be the high level people who raped a country, raped the humanity of its dignity, raped UN, raped the standing of US in the world, with complete disregard of human suffering for american soldiers and iraqi people who should be brought to justice.
#3 Posted by kaurasach on May 13, 2004 1:16:13 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#2 Posted by Malyck on May 13, 2004 1:04:05 pm
Questions have been raised if Donald Rumsfeld should resign voluntarily or else be fired by the President. Neither of this is on the horizon yet.
Why the poor Rumsy has to resign ??? Why would Bush fire him?? What has he done?? His only fault is to send his troops to Iraq believing that this will prove better for the humanity on the whole???
Take my words .... this is not scandle....you people are making it scandle. I know this is case of `injury without damage` (Ashbey vs. White 1703) but remember during war it a luck to have injurian sine damnum rather than whole damage and injury. People die in war ... you should be thank full that they didnt killed those Iraqi prisoners. These people are still safe. I can assure you that if Iraqi rebels would have won the war they would have cut throats of American and British Soldiers. Atleast they were little human to have some fun and give them mental torture.
Why cant we see things practically .... why is there a utopia in mind of eveyone of you on which you judge espeicially Amercia. If Saddam`s soldiers can kill and butcher their own people, if Saddam`s soldiers can plot massive acts of terror, if Saddam`s soldiers can gas alive Shias, if Saddam can bomb Kurds....doesnt American soldiers have right to JUST ``THREAT`` THEM WITH ELECTROCUTION?
Forget Vienna Conventions and Geneva conventions....talk about reality .... talk what happens in the world. Dont tell people what should happen and what treatments are necesasary. Trace out history of wars of the world and tell me in which war the subjects were pamperd with courtesans on silk feathery beds with wines? Talk practical stuff ... not something which was never done in histroy.
Why the poor Rumsy has to resign ??? Why would Bush fire him?? What has he done?? His only fault is to send his troops to Iraq believing that this will prove better for the humanity on the whole???
Take my words .... this is not scandle....you people are making it scandle. I know this is case of `injury without damage` (Ashbey vs. White 1703) but remember during war it a luck to have injurian sine damnum rather than whole damage and injury. People die in war ... you should be thank full that they didnt killed those Iraqi prisoners. These people are still safe. I can assure you that if Iraqi rebels would have won the war they would have cut throats of American and British Soldiers. Atleast they were little human to have some fun and give them mental torture.
Why cant we see things practically .... why is there a utopia in mind of eveyone of you on which you judge espeicially Amercia. If Saddam`s soldiers can kill and butcher their own people, if Saddam`s soldiers can plot massive acts of terror, if Saddam`s soldiers can gas alive Shias, if Saddam can bomb Kurds....doesnt American soldiers have right to JUST ``THREAT`` THEM WITH ELECTROCUTION?
Forget Vienna Conventions and Geneva conventions....talk about reality .... talk what happens in the world. Dont tell people what should happen and what treatments are necesasary. Trace out history of wars of the world and tell me in which war the subjects were pamperd with courtesans on silk feathery beds with wines? Talk practical stuff ... not something which was never done in histroy.
#1 Posted by rahul_capri on May 13, 2004 1:04:04 pm
We can wax eloquent about it ,write articles or try to explain the actions of one party or another. One thing which is obvious and cannot be more obvious is that this is a slugfest of hatred. And that is the only explanation.Never before has the lines between ``us`` and ``them`` so clearly drawn.And this will go on unless.......No kidding,There is no unless. This will go on.Raising voices or keeping quiet aint gonna make any difference.The verdict is out.We are more capable of hatred than of any other emotion.
Interact Index
Also by Mohammad Gill
Similar Articles
- Mind the Gap, The Generation Gap That Is Bhaskar Dasgupta
- Gen. Petraeus & Crocker's Washington Show is a Damp Squib Gajendra Singh
- Fair Game Mohammad Gill
- Will President Bush Invade Iran? Mohammad Gill
- Imperialism and the Writing of History Rohit Chopra
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- majumdar: Kaal bhai, Now or Never... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- nkg: Re: # 133 Special provision... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- majumdar: Nkg moshai, What is wrong... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- nkg: Re: # 128 Dinaric... RSS is... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- nkg: Re: # 120 HP... The core... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- nkg: Re: # 98 hamidm2... " what... âDustbin of historyâ or
- pinku: add to #133 Posted... âDustbin of historyâ or
- pinku: #127 Posted by tahmed32... âDustbin of historyâ or
