Ex-allies 'fight al-Qaeda in Iraq'

[MTAFFI]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071129...71127200574;_ylt=AoadNKe8n8C.1_cbjQ564VFX6GMA

6,000 Sunnis join pact with US in Iraq
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 28, 9:18 PM ET


HAWIJA, Iraq - Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds.

The new alliance — called the single largest single volunteer mobilization since the war began — covers the "last gateway" for groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq seeking new havens in northern Iraq, U.S. military officials said.

U.S. commanders have tried to build a ring around insurgents who fled military offensives launched earlier this year in the western Anbar province and later into Baghdad and surrounding areas. In many places, the U.S.-led battles were given key help from tribal militias — mainly Sunnis — that had turned against al-Qaida and other groups.

Extremists have sought new footholds in northern areas once loyal to Saddam Hussein's Baath party as the U.S.-led gains have mounted across central regions. But their ability to strike near the capital remains.

A woman wearing an explosive-rigged belt blew herself up near an American patrol near Baqouba, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, the military announced Wednesday. The blast on Tuesday — a rare attack by a female suicide bomber — wounded seven U.S. troops and five Iraqis, the statement said.

The ceremony to pledge the 6,000 new fighters was presided over by dozen sheiks — each draped in black robes trimmed with gold braiding — who signed the contract on behalf of tribesmen at a small U.S. outpost in north-central Iraq.

For about $275 a month — nearly the salary for the typical Iraqi policeman — the tribesmen will man about 200 security checkpoints beginning Dec. 7, supplementing hundreds of Iraqi forces already in the area.

About 77,000 Iraqis nationwide, mostly Sunnis, have broken with the insurgents and joined U.S.-backed self-defense groups.

Those groups have played a major role in the lull in violence: 648 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead in November to date, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press. This compares with 2,155 in May as the so-called "surge" of nearly 30,000 additional American troops gained momentum.

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq have also dropped sharply. So far this month, the military has reported 34 deaths, compared with 38 in October. In June, 101 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

Village mayors and others who signed Wednesday's agreement say about 200 militants have sought refuge in the area, about 30 miles southwest of Kirkuk on the edge of northern Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region. Hawija is a predominantly Sunni Arab cluster of villages which has long been an insurgent flashpoint.

The recently arrived militants have waged a campaign of killing and intimidation to try to establish a new base, said Sheikh Khalaf Ali Issa, mayor of Zaab village.

"They killed 476 of my citizens, and I will not let them continue their killing," Issa said.

With the help of the new Sunni allies, "the Hawija area will be an obstacle to militants, rather than a pathway for them," said Maj. Sean Wilson, with the Army's 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division. "They're another set of eyes that we needed in this critical area."

By defeating militants in Hawija, U.S. and Iraqi leaders hope to keep them away from Kirkuk, an ethnically diverse city that is also the hub of Iraq's northern oil fields.

"They want to go north into Kirkuk and wreak havoc there, and that's exactly what we're trying to avoid," Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq, told The Associated Press this week.

Kurds often consider Kurkik part of their ancestral homeland and often refer to the city as the "Kurdish Jerusalem." Saddam, however, relocated tens of thousands of pro-regime Arabs to the city in the 1980s and 1990s under his "Arabization" policy.

The Iraqi government has begun resettling some of those Arabs to their home regions, making room for thousands of Kurds who have gradually returned to Kirkuk since Saddam's ouster.

Tension has been rising over the city's status — whether it will join the semi-autonomous Kurdish region or continue being governed by Baghdad.

"Hawija is the gateway through which all our communities — Kurdish, Turkomen and Arab alike — can become unsafe," said Abu Saif al-Jabouri, mayor of al-Multaqa village north of Kirkuk. "Do I love my neighbor in Hawija? That question no longer matters. I must work to help him, because his safety helps me."

In Baghdad, a bus convoy arrived carrying hundreds of refugees home from Syria. The buses, funded by the Iraqi government, left Damascus on Tuesday as part of a plan to speed the return of the estimated 2.2 million Iraqis who have fled to neighboring Syria and Jordan.

Also Wednesday, an Iraqi journalist Dhia al-Kawaz who said 11 members of his family — two sisters, their husbands and their seven children — were killed in their Baghdad home challenged the government's denial of the deaths.

The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, insisted that the deaths — reportedly Sunday in a northern neighborhood of Baghdad known to be a Shiite militia stronghold — never took place.

Al-Kawaz, who has lived outside Iraq for 20 years, told Al-Jazeera television: "I ask the spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh to let all of my family appear on TV."

The media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders condemned the attack and claimed Iraqi police at a nearby checkpoint failed to intervene.

 

[MTAFFI]

Well, you are working off an assumption that the enemy I'm referring to in Iraq and elsewhere are simply good Muslims. With that mindset it is hard to have a realistic and worthwhile discussion with you on the issue. Muslims aren't the enemy in Iraq, they are nothing but butchers who call themselves Muslims. Call me naive, but I do not accept that a true Muslim would intentionally kill women and children in a marketplace with a suicide bomb, car bomb, RPG, whatever. The sad truth of the matter is that these butchers you call heroes are responsible for killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims. I already know your response, it is a conspiracy. If you can't face simple reality, I don't see how you will ever produce your utopian version of a caliphate.

with some it is pointless to go through this since they have their view and you have yours. (Even though you are exactly right)

These people we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan do not fight in the way of Allah, they fight for greed and power.

 

[MTAFFI]

http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071204/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Forty Qaeda leaders killed or caught in Iraq: U.S.
By Paul Tait 2 hours, 15 minutes ago


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Forty senior al Qaeda in Iraq members were either captured or killed in November, including a senior adviser to the Sunni Islamist group's leader, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.


Violence levels in Iraq have fallen to their lowest levels since January 2006 after a security crackdown, which included a deployment of an extra 30,000 U.S. troops, targeting al Qaeda and Shi'ite militias across the country.

But while attacks have fallen by 55 percent since the additional troops were fully deployed in mid-June, allowing thousands of Iraqis who had fled abroad to return home, U.S. commanders say violence could easily flare again.

"There is no question that al Qaeda in Iraq remains a dangerous and vicious threat to the Iraqi people and to the security forces and the coalition forces," U.S. military spokesman Major-General Kevin Bergner told a news conference.

"Al Qaeda continues to try to seek spectacular attacks which were so damaging and which continue to be so damaging in inciting sectarian tensions ... we still have a tough fight ahead of us even amidst the progress," he said.

Bergner said one al Qaeda member killed last month had been identified as Abu Maysara, a Syrian he said was a senior adviser to al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

He said Maysara was killed along with five other al Qaeda fighters in a raid on a building near Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad on November 17.

"EXTREMIST GUIDANCE"

The six were killed when U.S. ground forces called in air strikes after coming under fire from the building. Bergner said Maysara had been identified by DNA tests.

"Abu Maysara was responsible for providing extremist guidance and justifications on terrorist matters to Abu al-Masri," Bergner said.

Maysara was captured in November 2004 but escaped from Iraq's Badush prison in March 2007.

He was an adviser to al Masri's predecessor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Falluja, west of Baghdad, where al Qaeda fought battles against U.S. forces in 2003 and 2004, Bergner said.

"He also ran an illegal court in Falluja that was responsible for the brutal murders of countless innocent Iraqis," he added.

Maysara usually signed off on al Qaeda in Iraq Web statements for Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. and Iraqi military raid in June 2006.

Bergner said Maysara was one of nine senior al Qaeda figures killed last month, with another 31 captured. Of those 40, four were described as senior level emirs and nine as cell leaders.

The fight against al Qaeda has shifted from its former stronghold in western Anbar province to areas north and south of Baghdad after the troop increase and growing use of local police units organized by mainly Sunni Arab tribal sheikhs.

Bergner said the recently completed Operation Iron Hammer north of Baghdad had "captured or killed hundreds of terrorists." It has been replaced by a new offensive named Operation Iron Reaper, which involves four U.S. combat brigades and three Iraqi army divisions.

Earlier on Tuesday, Iraq's cabinet agreed to seek a final one-year extension on the U.N. Security Council mandate allowing U.S.-led foreign troops to conduct a wide range of military operations in Iraq.

The current one-year mandate expires at the end of 2007. When the U.N. mandate ends in 2008, bilateral agreements will govern U.S.-Iraqi relations. The White House has said formal talks will begin early next year on the future relationship.

(Additional reporting by Dean Yates)

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

So you think the way to handle someone who is running around killing people, is to fine him?

I find the whole legal issue very interesting:

The victim has the right to kill him... or accept blood money.

You know, this is exactly what the U.S. military does in Iraq. It pays "blood money" to the families of the civilians who were killed by their soldiers, to compensate them. So far, only the U.S. military is allowed the right to refer to the deaths of it's soldiers as 'murdered'. But when we kill, it's an "accident" - and even in cases like the last "Blackwater" incident... Iraqis do not have the right to convict them in their own courts.

So, yes... it is written this way in both lands, that this is the accepted way to "handle someone who is running around killing people."

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Yes, the U.S. isn't that concerned with Afghanistan right now, and for obvious reasons. However, when the troop committment in Iraq goes down, which it will soon, Afghanistan will become more of a focus.

Really? I heard there's more of an interest in pursuing a coflict with Iran? Have you been tracking the new deployments and the anti-missile defense project? Really interesting stuff. Don't think Bush has any interest in Osama bin Laden.

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Gator]

So far, only the U.S. military is allowed the right to refer to the deaths of it's soldiers as 'murdered'.

Could you give me a source of the U.S. military calling its KIA soldiers murdered? Or the order proscribing this?

Thanks.

 

[Keltoi]

Really? I heard there's more of an interest in pursuing a coflict with Iran? Have you been tracking the new deployments and the anti-missile defense project? Really interesting stuff. Don't think Bush has any interest in Osama bin Laden.

The Ninth Scribe

There isn't going to be a war with Iran, at least not as a result of U.S. military offensive action. Preparing for conflict isn't going to war. We prepared for conflict with the Soviet Union for years.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Could you give me a source of the U.S. military calling its KIA soldiers murdered? Or the order proscribing this?

Thanks.

My bad. The writ of law doesn't use the term "murder" even though the punishment is the same, and they're still arguing over definitions, as follows:

The distinction is an important one, said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It’s not a crime to be an enemy combatant,” he said.

Lawful enemy combatants are, broadly speaking, uniformed soldiers fighting for a government. Unlawful enemy combatants, according to the Military Commissions Act, are everyone else who has engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States, including members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

I think I should point out the portion that determines a "lawful" combatant is very sketchy, since the status of the "uniformed soldiers fighting for a government" depends entirely on whether or not the United States chooses to recognize that government.

For instance, if the above holds true for "lawful enemy combatants" then none of the Taliban fighters have commited a crime. Likewise, none of Saddam Hussein's fighters have done anything wrong... and yet they are being held and Bush does seek to charge them as one would charge a murderer. Giving the charge a new name or different title doesn't actually change much, but I do see your point.

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

There isn't going to be a war with Iran, at least not as a result of U.S. military offensive action. Preparing for conflict isn't going to war. We prepared for conflict with the Soviet Union for years.

True.

 

[Resigned]

I think it’s worth looking at the “Third Geneva Convention” Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” of August 12, 1949–specifically Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 6.

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b ) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c ) that of carrying arms openly; (d ) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

The definition of “combatants” who are entitled to treatment as Prisoners of War is further expanded by “PROTOCOL I, Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts”, of 8 June 1977, specifically Article 44, paragraph 2 and 3.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly;(a) during each military engagement, and (b ) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

I think that most of the people being held in Gitmo fall into one of these categories.


Let’s recap:

(b ) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c ) that of carrying arms openly; (d ) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Would anyone care to explain how the the Talibums or AQ fufilled these three?

violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.


3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population

Would anyone care to explain how the the Talibums or AQ fufilled these conditions?

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

I think it’s worth looking at the “Third Geneva Convention” Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” of August 12, 1949–specifically Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 6.

This is all very interesting but the Bush administration wants nothing to do with Geneva Conventions, and has disqualified same because it prevented him from pursuing his own avenues, namely the use of torture... or should I say "agressive interrogation techniques" to gather evidence that didn't exist at the time of the arrest. And why do you act like the United States didn't know the Taliban governed Afghanistan? Of course it did, or are you defining what you feel is a "legal" government? There is no such law that dictates that a government has to be democratic in order to be recognized... take Saudi Arabia, for example. So far as I can tell the Taliban's only crime was refusing an extradition request.

If that's all it takes to invade a country to get a crook, then I want the U.S. to invade the Vatican so we can arrest and prosecute Cardinal Bernard Law. He was supposed to face charges for his role in destroying some 400 families here, but the pope wisked him off to the Vatican where he was promoted... to arch priest! Needless to say, the Vatican is not obligated to honor our extradition requests either.

At any rate, the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply here, per Bush's orders. Whether the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia fullfilled the given protocols is entirely a matter of perspective. I want peace too, but if my country were invaded, I can promise you, no one would get any until well after the occupation was removed. I imagine most would feel the same way. Sure some would sell-out in order to feed their families... but that wouldn't make them right. It would just make them desparate.

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Resigned]

This is all very interesting but the Bush administration wants nothing to do with Geneva Conventions, and has disqualified same because it prevented him from pursuing his own avenues, namely the use of torture... or should I say "agressive interrogation techniques" to gather evidence that didn't exist at the time of the arrest. And why do you act like the United States didn't know the Taliban governed Afghanistan? Of course it did, or are you defining what you feel is a "legal" government? There is no such law that dictates that a government has to be democratic in order to be recognized... take Saudi Arabia, for example. So far as I can tell the Taliban's only crime was refusing an extradition request.

The torture or “agressive interrogation techniques" you identify is, by all accounts, fairly mild in comparison to humans being held hostage for the purpose of making snuff films wherein people who bound and gagged are being beheaded for later broadcast by al-jizz.

And since when did the Talibums “govern” Afghanistan? Unless I’m missing something, they seized only partial control of a hapless nation through a reign of terror and intimidation. The fact that their actions of harboring and abetting a mass murderer made them complicit in the actions of Bin Laden.

If that's all it takes to invade a country to get a crook, then I want the U.S. to invade the Vatican so we can arrest and prosecute Cardinal Bernard Law. He was supposed to face charges for his role in destroying some 400 families here, but the pope wisked him off to the Vatican where he was promoted... to arch priest! Needless to say, the Vatican is not obligated to honor our extradition requests either.

Why would the U.S. have any interest in invading Vatican City on your behalf? And why the double standard - You were the one whining about the Taliban’s only crime being refusal of an extradition request. It sounds like a similar situation.

At any rate, the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply here, per Bush's orders. Whether the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia fullfilled the given protocols is entirely a matter of perspective. I want peace too, but if my country were invaded, I can promise you, no one would get any until well after the occupation was removed. I imagine most would feel the same way. Sure some would sell-out in order to feed their families... but that wouldn't make them right. It would just make them desparate.

The Ninth Scribe

It’s actually not a matter of perspective. It’s a matter of fact that the Taliban and AQ operate under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending in that civilian population.

 

[muthenna]

AlQaidah in Iraq doesnt exist anymore its Islamic State of Iraq (many groups joined together amongst them AlQaidah in Iraq), as for the traitors (nationalistic inclined not islamicly) these are thugs and bandits like Abu Risha and others who aren't practicing muslims at all.
For ex. in the video of AnsarSunah they tell that Ramadi was "taken" by americans not by force but by economic strangulation that led to the rise of the socalled traitorous "Awakening" in that area, many of them are militias that dont answer to their tribe, beside what US of Losers say.
These filthy tactics are being used in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.
Here are the so called "Hamas of Iraq" (as they call themselves) who were part of revolutionary 1920 brigades:

 

[muthenna]

 

[muthenna]

Alhamdulilah many fighters from other groups seing the treachery, are flocking to Islamic State of Iraq and giving pledge bayah to Abu Umer Bagdadi, as from Islamic army of Iraq entire sectors have joined Islamic State of Iraq...
But of course you dont hear this from american failing propaganda

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

The torture or “agressive interrogation techniques" you identify is, by all accounts, fairly mild in comparison to humans being held hostage for the purpose of making snuff films wherein people who bound and gagged are being beheaded for later broadcast by al-jizz.

So let me get this straight. You think the ISI just grabs people off the street to torture and execute them without any sense of due process? Funny, that's not what happened to Jill Carroll and I happen to have the minutes of those hearings... sorry to dissappoint, but quite a number of people were released (men and women), because they were found to be... innocent. I know the western media has consistantly misreported events by confusing the acts of neighborhood gangs with those of the Mujahideen, but I've found ways to separate them. It wasn't that hard.

And since when did the Talibums “govern” Afghanistan? Unless I’m missing something, they seized only partial control of a hapless nation through a reign of terror and intimidation. The fact that their actions of harboring and abetting a mass murderer made them complicit in the actions of Bin Laden.

Govern, rule... what's the difference? The U.S. was aware of this arrangement the whole time and never gave a crap about the Afghan people - that's not was all this is about. Come to that, they've never given a crap about the Saudis (for their public beheadings and what have you) or the Chinese either... but that's only because they have to respect those governments. We can't even declare the genocide of a the Armenians in Turkey because Bush doesn't care what sin an 'allied government' commits. But to get back to Afghanistan, the words:

And before their wounds had healed and their grief had ended {referring to the Soviet War}, they were invaded without right by your unjust governments, without stopping to think about or reflect on Bush's claim that this invasion was a response to the events of the 11th, although--as I mentioned previously--the events of Manhattan were a response to the American-Israeli coalition's murder of our people in Palestine and Lebanon. And it was I who was responsible for 9/11, and I stress that all Afghans--both government and people--had no knowledge of those events and America knows that, because some of the Taliban's ministers fell into its hands as captives, and they were interrogated and that became known.

Why would the U.S. have any interest in invading Vatican City on your behalf?

Not my behalf. None of my sons were raped by their priests. But what about... the LAW? I brought this incident up because I wanted you to understand why I have a problem with Bush's mentality concerning the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't believe for a minute that this is for the good of the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and so forth. Judging from the weapons sales alone, I expect it's all for profit... at our expense and the expense of all these other people. But that's just my humble opinion.

The Vatican has aligned itself with child rapists by offering them safe-haven and Turkey has commited genocide... yet they are not being held to account, nor are they obligated to extradite the criminals who have harmed the American people. So what of American values and the rights of the people?

It’s actually not a matter of perspective. It’s a matter of fact that the Taliban and AQ operate under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending in that civilian population.

On the contrary, it is a matter of perspective. The Catholic church operates under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending into our population... unless your saying that child rape is not "harming the civilian population"? The fireworks from this fall-out, by the way, only began here in Boston... but have since reached to California and Alaska. Likewise, Iraq's idiot in command, Maliki, is about to commit the very same crime for which Saddam Hussein was hung - he wants to take out the kurdish rebels and Sunni resistance, right? Can't wait.

Not arguing with you, but I just want you to understand what goes on in my mind when I see so much of the pot calling the kettle black. Bush turns a blind eye to a number of other atrocities because it suits his purpose to do so. This, none of it, has anything to do with: What's good for the people. Only a pidgeon would be satisfied with those feable crumbs.

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Resigned]

So let me get this straight. You think the ISI just grabs people off the street to torture and execute them without any sense of due process? Funny, that's not what happened to Jill Carroll and I happen to have the minutes of those hearings... sorry to dissappoint, but quite a number of people were released (men and women), because they were found to be... innocent. I know the western media has consistantly misreported events by confusing the acts of neighborhood gangs with those of the Mujahideen, but I've found ways to separate them. It wasn't that hard.

It’s fine to claim that you have some special knowledge of the due process that is afforded by the “Mujahideen” and whether or not you possess any minutes of hearings is only a claim with no corroboration. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as the “due process” that is practiced by the Mujahideen”. What evidence was collected during discovery? How many witnesses were deposed? What physical evidence was offered during testimony? How many witnesses were cross examined? How many witnesses were cross examined?

We’ll await your lucid response!

Further, you may wish to use the “quote” function to actually address what people write out in their posts. Did I ever claim that:
”the ISI just grabs people off the street to torture and execute them without any sense of due process/”

You will find the answer to be, no.

Govern, rule... what's the difference?

There’s a big difference. Your holy warrior heroes were always a threat to the U.S. but we acted with restraint in not taking much harsher action until 9-11 happened.

You dismiss the fact that the Talibums had no authority to govern of rule other than a perceived holy mandate to bludgeon hapless villages and hamlets into their version of the 7th century. They brutalized an entire population yet you would allow that rather than to provide some mechanism whereby that nation might find a way to provide some hope of allowing girls to attend school or women to walk to the market without being beaten with sticks.

These brutal, reprehensible acts of barbarism are given a silent imprimatur. They are tacitly approved every time a "real" Muslim doesn't speak out with outrage in protest of such behavior. There just isn't a mass, coordinated, and universal outcry among Muslims worldwide over this madness. There are prewritten, bloodless public announcements of condemnation which are read and then folded up and put away until the next "isolated incident" requires some apologetics. It's just damage control. Window dressing for a building on fire.

The U.S. was aware of this arrangement the whole time and never gave a crap about the Afghan people - that's not was all this is about. Come to that, they've never given a crap about the Saudis (for their public beheadings and what have you) or the Chinese either... but that's only because they have to respect those governments. We can't even declare the genocide of a the Armenians in Turkey because Bush doesn't care what sin an 'allied government' commits. But to get back to Afghanistan, the words:

And before their wounds had healed and their grief had ended {referring to the Soviet War}, they were invaded without right by your unjust governments, without stopping to think about or reflect on Bush's claim that this invasion was a response to the events of the 11th, although--as I mentioned previously--the events of Manhattan were a response to the American-Israeli coalition's murder of our people in Palestine and Lebanon. And it was I who was responsible for 9/11, and I stress that all Afghans--both government and people--had no knowledge of those events and America knows that, because some of the Taliban's ministers fell into its hands as captives, and they were interrogated and that became known.

We never gave a crap until our nation was attacked by Islamic terrorists who were aided, abetted and protected by the Talibums. Apparently you care little about the motivations for the U.S. responding to the attack on our soil. You would prefer to makes excuses for it.

You seem to forget that muslims have a history of instigating wars and then calling for a “time-out” when the victims of their aggression respond with force. I can cite several relevant examples if you wish.

Not my behalf. None of my sons were raped by their priests. But what about... the LAW? I brought this incident up because I wanted you to understand why I have a problem with Bush's mentality concerning the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't believe for a minute that this is for the good of the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and so forth. Judging from the weapons sales alone, I expect it's all for profit... at our expense and the expense of all these other people. But that's just my humble opinion.

One option is to turn Afghanistan over to the Talibums and simply allow them to pick up where they left off - public executions, a 7th century social order, hatred and denigration of women... basically, the worst elements of humanity.

The Vatican has aligned itself with child rapists by offering them safe-haven

You should write a letter to the Pope protesting such behavior. As another option, email Muqtada "Chubby Jihad" al-Sadr and ask him to pen a fatwa. What do you want from me?

and Turkey has commited genocide...

See above. Or, as a way to placate your insensate rage, you can always “blame America”.

yet they are not being held to account, nor are they obligated to extradite the criminals who have harmed the American people. So what of American values and the rights of the people?

…and your holy warrior heroes are car bombing men, women and children in Iraq, every day, of every month. Life’s not always fair.

I see as a central theme in your post(s), a certain whining about your need to hold the U.S. accountable for every aberration, injustice and hurt feeling that anyone may experience. I’m not going to apologize for every grievance you may have or the fact that you are being vocal about being at the end of a wagging finger that takes offense at every action of the “Great Satan”.

On the contrary, it is a matter of perspective. The Catholic church operates under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending into our population... unless your saying that child rape is not "harming the civilian population"? The fireworks from this fall-out, by the way, only began here in Boston... but have since reached to California and Alaska. Likewise, Iraq's idiot in command, Maliki, is about to commit the very same crime for which Saddam Hussein was hung - he wants to take out the kurdish rebels and Sunni resistance, right? Can't wait.

The Catholic Church has been held accountable (and is still being held accountable), for the crimes of Priests. At the very least, there is due process where victims can have their day in court. Enter a Madrassa in Pakistan and see if you have similar recourse to address your grievance.

You have an obvious antagonistic relationship with the Catholic Church. There’s really nothing I can do to assist your with that.

Not arguing with you, but I just want you to understand what goes on in my mind when I see so much of the pot calling the kettle black. Bush turns a blind eye to a number of other atrocities because it suits his purpose to do so. This, none of it, has anything to do with: What's good for the people. Only a pidgeon would be satisfied with those feable crumbs.

The Ninth Scribe

Well, you know as well as I do that if the U.S. intercedes in most any part of the world, it’s decried as “interfering in the affairs of…”. When we step back and insist that warring tribes work out their differences, we’re described as “abandoning the peace process…”

Anyway, if you need something to add to your repertoire of “I hate you because…” you can sum the number of Iraqi’s murdered by the Mujahideen, add that number to those killed during the last decade in the jihad fronts of the Sudan (200,000±) and Algeria (120,000±) and you've got yourself a city's worth of murder victims. But of course, it doesn't stop in Sudan, Algeria, and Darfur.

 

[Cognescenti]

[

Alhamdulilah many fighters from other groups seing the treachery, are flocking to Islamic State of Iraq and giving pledge bayah to Abu Umer Bagdadi, as from Islamic army of Iraq entire sectors have joined Islamic State of Iraq...
But of course you dont hear this from american failing propaganda

muthenna;

I suspect I may not be the only one having difficulty following your comments. Could you explain to me where the Peoples Front of Judea fits into this?

 

[aamirsaab]

Old threads should be put down. Like this one.