Former President of Italy: 9/11 was an Inside Job

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

 

On November 30th, the former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, wrote in Italy’s largest newspaper:

[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe … now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.

The above is a rough translation using Babelfish. Someone who speaks fluent Italian will be able produce a much more accurate translation.

Mr. Cossiga previously stated, in 2001:

The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.” (p. 36-37)

 

Note: Criticizing Zionism, as Mr. Cossiga does, is not the same as being anti-semitic. See this, this and this.

The full story in

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/former-president-of-italy-911-was.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

FOIA Appeal Denied: FBI Again Refuses To Confirm Identity Of 9/11 Planes

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

FOIA Appeal Denied: FBI Again Refuses To Confirm Identity Of 9/11 Planes

Aidan Monaghan

In an effort to end speculation surrounding the events at the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001, a Freedom of Information Act request was made of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seeking confirmation of the process by which recovered debris belonging to the 4 aircraft used in the 9/11 terrorist attacks was identified. This request was denied. An appeal of that decision has also been denied. Court action is pending.

According to the FBI, “the material requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A).”

This subsection reads: “could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

The FBI has publicly declared that certain civil aircraft were involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It apparently was not believed by the FBI, that disclosure of that information would jeopardize any September 11th “enforcement proceedings”.

It is unknown why disclosure of aircraft identifying data – that is presumably the basis for the FBI’s current public opinion regarding the 9/11 planes and which was likely provided by the Federal Aviation Administration or the National Transportation Safety Board – could then jeopardize FBI “enforcement proceedings”.

“The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States.”

http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm

The NTSB acknowledges that it provided assistance to the FBI, regarding its investigation of the civil aircraft reportedly used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:

“The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.”

(See NTSB source links provided below)

The FBI currently lists American Airlines flight 11, United Airlines flight 175, American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, as those used to carry out the 9/11 attacks:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

The National Transportation Safety Board lists the above flights on September 11, 2001 as being provided by the following aircraft, that were listed under the Federal Aviation Administration registry as follows:

American Airlines flight 11 – N334AA

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA060&rpt=fa

United Airlines flight 175 – N612UA

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa

American Airlines flight 77 – N644AA

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA064&rpt=fa

United Airlines flight 93 – N591UA

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA065&rpt=fa

Original FOIA request denial:

Original FOIA request:

False Flag Section has more related reports

 

The full story in

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/fbi-refuses-to-confirm-identity-of-911-planes/1875/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

9/11 and Skepticism

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Kevin Ryan

Sat, 2007-11-24 11:37 —

Recently I had a chance to debate the issue of 9/11 Truth on Air America radio’s Thom Hartmann show, with an avowed supporter of the official story, Skeptic magazine’s Michael Shermer. It was an interesting experience and some good information was communicated, although the format did not allow for a detailed discussion. This debate did not fully settle the question of which outrageous conspiracy theory was the most plausible, but it did provide another helpful example of how Americans are continually being asked to accept the opposite of what they know to be true.

The debate was widely anticipated in some circles, partly because it took months for Hartmann’s producer to find a legitimate defender of the official version of 9/11. Apparently those who knew something of the official story would not publicly support it, and those who would publicly support that official story didn’t know anything about it. That fact in itself is a testament to the progress made by the 9/11 Truth Movement over the last few years.

But in September, after receiving an unsolicited email from Shermer, I invited him to join me for the Hartmann debate. From Skeptic magazine’s “9/11 Conspiracies” issue last year, it was clear that Shermer was also unaware of many facts about 9/11, and the official explanations for the events of that day. But he was well known for his stance on the issue, and I felt this was a chance to follow-up on Hartmann’s offer. With that in mind, I approached the debate carefully, with respect for my opponent, the audience and the host.

It didn’t take long to understand Shermer’s position on 9/11. He didn’t bother with facts about the events themselves, and appeared to be motivated only through a monster-under-the-bed perception of “conspiracy theories”. Even after admitting that the official version of events is itself a conspiracy theory, he maintained that conspiracy among oil company executives and politicians is somehow unbelievable, while conspiracy solely among people who just happen to live on the last remaining oil-rich land is to be expected.

Additionally, my opponent’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a skeptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of skepticism to be sure. What I found was that skepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion skeptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.

On several issues, Skeptic magazine has taken a decidedly non-skeptical approach. The events of 9/11 are one example, and global warming is another. It took Shermer years to come around on the issue of human-induced climate change, even after the IPCC had satisfied nearly all scientists with their assessment of the situation in 2001. He continued as a leading skeptic of global warming, telling us not to worry about it, until his well-publicized “flipping point” in 2006.

At the start of our debate, Shermer responded to my own skepticism about the history of al Qaeda by suggesting that our government gets in bed with bad people all the time. At that point, I wasn’t sure whose side of the debate he was on. But it soon became clear that he was only ready to talk about the demolition hypothesis, and then only in the sense that he wanted me to prove that hypothesis. Although I could have given more detailed evidence, it was gratifying to know that this last remaining, relatively legitimate defender of the official story had only a few points of unsubstantiated speculation to support his supposedly reasoned skepticism.

My opponent was clearly not skeptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the current US government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the US chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defenses during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for US government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”.

It is only on this playing field that we can possibly accept Michael Shermer as an exemplary skeptic. His Skeptics Society is not skeptical of authoritative claims that affect the lives of average people, like 9/11 or electronic voting machines or corporate media consolidation. Instead, Shermer and his group are skeptical of random non-authoritative claims, like those about UFOs, or the belief in God. It seems possible that his skepticism has more to do with supporting business interests than it has to do with reason.

Regardless, when someone who is clearly non-skeptical is promoted as the ideal skeptic, we are being asked to take another step away from reality. That may smell like a pile of manure to some, but as a Buddhist teacher might say, it is exactly the kind of manure that we can work with. That is, when we have an opportunity to notice the root causes of our own weaknesses, the ones that ultimately cause us the most pain and suffering, we can use that opportunity to help find our way back to reality, and back to a greater truth. Therein lies the real value of 9/11 skepticism.

In the end Shermer and I did agree on one thing, and that is that the truth about 9/11 is likely to be simple. His version of simple, however, is that terrorism amounts to just so many astoundingly lucky acts of random vengeance, with the Gods of Science turning a few blind eyes here and there. On the other hand, to me the simple truth is more likely to be that terrorism is a co-opted tool, used by a powerful few to help secure their long term strategic interests. In any case, when such truth becomes not only simple but also painfully obvious, it is imperative that we all become true skeptics.

Kevin Ryan is co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. A transcript of the Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate can be found at 911Research.com, and an MP3 is available at 911Truth.org.

The full story in

http://www.americanbuddhist.net/9-11-and-skepticism

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

A Video : Bush Caught Lying About September 11th

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

 

=== News Update ===

 

A Video : Bush Caught Lying About September 11th

Posted Dec 3, 2007 02:59 PM PST

Category: 911

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th.

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th.

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th.

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th.

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th.

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th.

See next down.

The full story in

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

CNN: Corrupt News Network

 

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates.

 

December 1, 2007

THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can’t afford to be sick with anything that won’t be treated with aspirin and bed rest.

So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a “debate,” what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?

In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process, as CNN did by hosting Wednesday’s debate, incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion. When one considers CNN’s performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent.

Corruption is a strong word. But consider these facts: The gimmick behind Wednesday’s debate was that the questions would be selected from those that ordinary Americans submitted to the video sharing Internet website YouTube, which is owned by Google. According to CNN, its staff culled through 5,000 submissions to select the handful that were put to the candidates. That process essentially puts the lie to the vox populi aura the association with YouTube was meant to create. When producers exercise that level of selectivity, the questions — whoever initially formulated and recorded them — actually are theirs.

That’s where things begin to get troubling, because CNN chose to devote the first 35 minutes of this critical debate to a single issue — immigration. Now, if that leaves you scratching your head, it’s probably because you’re included in the 96% of Americans who do not think immigration is the most important issue confronting this country. We’ve got a pretty good fix concerning what’s on the American mind right now, because the nonpartisan and highly reliable Pew Center has been regularly polling people since January on the issues that matter most to them. In fact, the center’s most recent survey was conducted in the days leading up to Wednesday’s debate.

HERE’S what Pew found: By an overwhelming margin, Americans think the war in Iraq is the most important issue facing the United States, followed by the economy, healthcare and energy prices. In fact, if you lump the war into a category with terrorism and other foreign policy issues, 40% of Americans say foreign affairs are their biggest concern in this election cycle. If you do something similar with all issues related to the economy, 31% list those questions as their most worrisome issue. As anybody who has looked at their 401(k) or visited a gas pump would expect, that aggregate figure has increased dramatically since Pew started polling in January. Back then, for example, concerns over the war outpaced economic anxieties by fully 8 to 1. By contrast, just 6% of the survey’s national sample said that immigration was the most important electoral issue. Moreover, that number hasn’t changed in a statistically meaningful way since the first of the year. In other words, more than nine out of 10 Americans think something matters more than immigration in this presidential election.

So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters’ concerns? The answer is that CNN’s most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday’s debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing. His network is in a desperate ratings battle with Fox News and, in a critical prime-time slot, with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. So, what’s good for Dobbs is good for CNN.

In other words, CNN intentionally directed the Republicans’ debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you’ve made a bigger audience for Dobbs.

That’s corruption, and it’s why the Republican candidates had to spend more than half an hour “debating” an issue on which their differences are essentially marginal — and, more important, why GOP voters had to sit and wait, mostly in vain, for the issues that really concern them to be discussed. That’s particularly true because that same Pew poll reported findings of particular relevance to Republican voters, the vast majority of whom continue to support the war in Iraq.

According to this most recent poll, a substantial number of Americans believe the surge is working. As Pew summarized their findings, “While Iraq remains a deeply polarizing issue across party lines, there has been improvement in how both Democrats and Republicans view the war. At the lowest point in February, barely half of Republicans (51%) said things were going well. Today, 74% of Republicans say the same. And while Democrats remain far more skeptical than Republicans, the proportion of Democrats expressing a positive view of the Iraq effort has doubled since February (from 16% to 33%).

“Independents’ assessments of how the military effort is going remain far closer to the views of Democrats than of Republicans. Currently, 41% of independents offer a positive assessment, while half say things are not going well. In February, 26% of independents expressed a positive view of the situation in Iraq.”

Those are significant swings of opinion, yet the poll also found that more than half of Americans still favor withdrawing American troops. That disconnect is a real issue for the GOP candidates, all but one of whom support the war. Unless we’re going to believe that the self-selecting YouTube questioners were utterly different from the rest of American voters, it seems pretty clear that CNN ignored these complex — and highly relevant concerns — for an issue that served its ratings interests — immigration — or ones that made for moments of conventional television conflict, like gun control, which doesn’t even show up in surveys of voters’ concerns.

THIS is intellectual venality, but it pales beside the wickedness of using some crackpot’s query about the candidates’ stand on Biblical inerrancy to do something that’s anathema in our system — to probe people’s individual religious consciences. American journalists quite legitimately ask candidates about policy issues — say, abortion — that might be influenced by their religious or philosophical convictions. We do not and should not ask them about those convictions themselves. It’s nobody’s business whether a candidate believes in the virgin birth, whether God gave an oral Torah to Moses at Sinai, whether the Buddha escaped the round of birth and rebirth or whether an angel appeared to Joseph Smith.

The latter point is relevant because CNN’s noxious laundering of this question through the goofy YouTube mechanism quite clearly was designed to embarrass Mitt Romney — who happens to be a Mormon — and, secondarily, to help Mike Huckabee — who, as a Baptist minister, had a ready answer, and who happens to be television’s campaign flavor of the month.

Beside considerations like these, CNN’s incompetent failure to weed out Democratically connected questioners pales.

In any event, CNN has failed in its responsibilities to the political process and it’s time for the leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties to take the network out of our electoral affairs.

 

The full story in

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten1dec01,0,4122002.column?coll=la-home-center

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Clash of cultures in Sudan

 

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

 

 

 

 

 

=== News Update ===

EDITORIAL: Clash of cultures in Sudan

By MIDDLE EAST TIMES

Published: December 03, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we go again. Last time it was a cartoon, or a caricature of the Prophet which led to riots from London to Jakarta. This time it’s a toy teddy bear that gave the crowds in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, reasons to demonstrate. Indeed, it would seem that it does not take very much to raise the anger and rile the masses in certain Muslim countries.

The “offense” was committed by Gillian Gibbons, a Briton, teaching English to young boys in Khartoum, where a court sentenced the British mother of two to 15 days in prison for allowing young pupils at the exclusive private school to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Angry crowds gathered outside mosques Friday following noon prayers protesting the “lenient” sentence handed to the British teacher. Some protesters carrying knives and sticks demanded nothing short of the death penalty. The death penalty for naming a stuffed teddy bear? As an American investigative reporter with ABC News used to say at the end of every segment, “Give me a break!”

In naming the culpable toy bear after the Prophet it is absolutely certain that this was not done as any act of ill-respect, but rather as a sign of affection and love. This is clearly where civilizations do clash for lack of understanding of the other’s culture. For the Sudanese who were offended to the point of asking for the death penalty for such a trivial matter, they ought to realize that Western societies hold teddy bears in great esteem. There is hardly a child in the Western world who does not own at least one or two or sometime a collection of dozens of such toy bears.

Great pain is given in naming these bears by the children, for whom the bears become a cherished companion that accompanies them to bed that night to help soothe childhood fears of the dark. The teddy bear becomes part of the child’s life, and sometimes even part of the family.

But nobody would pass the death sentence on the Sudanese who are ignorant of these facts and who are calling for the death of a human being, the mother of two children, a teacher who devoted part of her life to the education of Sudan’s own children.

And just as many people in Sudan are unaware of Western traditions, Mrs. Gibbons, though she should have known better, never expected that naming the toy after the Prophet would create such an uproar. Still, this hardly calls for 15 days in jail, not to mention the fact that she will lose her job upon release from jail and be expelled from the country.

Gibbons was granted a presidential pardon by Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir Monday and was released to British custody hours later. It was a wise decision which we applaud in calling for a better understanding between cultures.

The full story in

http://www.metimes.com/Editorial/2007/12/03/editorial_clash_of_cultures_in_sudan/9398/713~1196704801~1/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

War on Christmas? What About the Genocide on Christmas?

 

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

War on Christmas? What About the Genocide on Christmas?

Wisco, Griper Blade

 

December 3, 2007

I’ve written about the right’s valiant fight in the “War on Christmas” recently. If your city puts out white lights, instead of colored lights, or the checkout clerk at Sears says, “Happy Holidays,” instead of, “Merry Christmas,” you’re the victim of oppression.

The public voice of this defense of Christmas against the oppressive forces of “secular progressives” is FOX News blowhard Bill O’Reilly, who explains things this way:

See, I think it’s all part of the secular progressive agenda… to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square. Because if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious- based, usually.

See, when that seemingly nice lady at Walgreens says, “Happy Holidays,” it means she wants to get wasted, kill her sick parents, have an abortion, and marry that butch chick that works at the photo counter. And the only way she’ll be able to carry out her nefarious plan is to destroy Christmas.

Yeah, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. But, then again, it doesn’t really have to. He’s not speaking to the concerns of deep thinkers here. O’Reilly, who doesn’t really strike me as someone who’d be overly familiar with the inside of a church, pulls this “war” out of his butt every year for the right wing religious nuts in his audience.

Meanwhile, there’s an actual war on Christians going on and Bill’s a big fan. “It may be the end of Christianity in Iraq,” Bishop Antoine Audo of Aleppo, Syria told Catholic News Service. “This is very sad and very dangerous for the church, for Iraq and even for Muslim people, because it means the end of an old experience of living together.” If you want to wipe out Christianity, you go on a campaign of ethnic cleansing — you don’t call a sale at ShopKo “Holiday Savings Blowout!”

60 Minutes ran a piece last night on Christians in Iraq. In a secret underground church, the Reverend Canon Andrew White, an Anglican chaplain, explains the problem.

“The room is full of children, it’s full of women, but I don’t see the men. Where are they?” [CBS correspondent Scott] Pelley remarked.

“They are mainly killed. Some are kidnapped. Some are killed. In the last six months things have got particularly bad for the Christians. Here in this church, all of my leadership were originally taken and killed,” White explained. “All dead. But we never got their bodies back. This is one of the problems. I regularly do funerals here but it’s not easy to get the bodies.”

Asked if they’re better off now that Saddam Hussein is gone, White tells Pelley, “The situation now is clearly worse… There’s no comparison between Iraq now and then. Things are the most difficult they have ever been for Christians. Probably ever in history. They’ve never known it like now.”

There have been Christians in Mesopotamia literally since year one — more than two thousand years. And White tells us this is the worst it’s ever been for them. Saddam Hussein seemed to have little interest in religion and his state may have had the most religious freedom in the Middle East — Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s number two man, was Christian.

That’s all changed now. In July, the BCC reported that Iraqi Christians are “targeted by Sunni extremists because of their religion and by kidnappers – who are often Shia Arab militants or rogue members of the security forces – because of their wealth.” If it weren’t for the collapse of the rule of law that followed the fall of Saddam, this genocide wouldn’t be happening.

It’s ironic then, that the same people who’ve invented a “war on Christmas” in the US are also the biggest fans of the war in Iraq.

Inter Press Service:

…Now, in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration, Gary Bauer, a former Reagan administration official and longtime conservative activist, is heading up a new organisation aimed at countering liberal groups like MoveOn.org, and supporting President Bush’s global “war on terror”.

The “Forgotten Americans Coalition” is composed of a number of veteran conservative leaders, including the American Family Association’s Dr. Don Wildmon, Christian Broadcasting Network’s [Pat] Robertson, the Free Congress Foundation’s Paul Weyrich, and Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the wildly popular “Left Behind” series of apocalyptic novels, and his wife, Beverly, the founder of Concerned Women for America.

“Just prior to their testimony before Congress of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the situation in Iraq, the Forgotten Americans Coalition (FAC) issued a Declaration ‘warning Americans of the catastrophic consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq,’” IPS tells us. It’s impossible to believe that these American Evangelical leaders are ignorant of what’s happening to Christians in Iraq.

Of course, you could argue that Christians would be even more screwed if we left Iraq, but that would be true only if they were seeking western protection — they aren’t. “The Christians do not what us to guard the churches openly…” U.S. Army Colonel Rick Gibbs told 60 Minutes. “They feel that if we are overtly protecting the churches that someone underground covertly will come in and murder the Christians because they’re collaborating with the U.S. forces.”

The extremist propaganda is that Bush’s “Global War on Terror” is actually a crusade by Christians to wipe out Islam. By accepting western protection, Iraqi Christians would only be reinforcing that perception. And the American Christian fans of the war aren’t helping things any. In 2005, for example, Pat Robertson told the audience of The 700 Club that “Islam, at least at its core, teaches violence.” He went on to cite verses in the Quran that demand violence, but I can do the same with the Bible:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.”
–Deuteronomy 13:13-19

 

When you cherrypick verses, you can easily misrepresent a religion.

But, by pushing this line of crap, these people — who no doubt believe they’re the most Christian people in America — are hurting Christians in Iraq. As I said earlier, there’s no way they don’t know this. I can only assume they don’t care. This “we have to wipe out Islam” line of crap is all over the right wing blogosphere. Bush’s GWoT is a Global War on Islam, we’re told, and if you’re not onboard with it, you hate America and Freedom.

If you ever needed proof that the Evangelical right is a political movement, not a religious one, there ya go.

And, the next time you hear one of these idiots whining about their made up “war on Christmas,” consider how unconcerned they are about the genocide of Christians in Iraq. It’s hard to take their complaints about “holiday trees” and “winter festivals” seriously when they’re stoking the fires of ethnic cleansing in the Middle East.

“I was at a secret church service yesterday. A man came up to me and handed me some photographs of his children. They’d been shot to death. Somebody had come by their house and murdered his children because they were Christians,” reported Pelley.

It’d be nice if American Christian leaders gave a damn about that, but the war’s more important than those who die in it.

 

The full story in

http://uruknet.info/?p=m38876&hd=&size=1&l=e

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

950 juveniles in US prisons in Iraq

 

 

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

950 juveniles in US prisons in Iraq

Agence France-Presse

 

December 3, 2007 BAGHDAD — US troops are holding nearly 950 children and teenagers in a military prison at a Baghdad base, some as young as 10, a top commander said Monday. Brigadier General Michael Nevin of US military police said many of these youngsters, mainly 15, 16 or 17 years of age are illiterate and have been detained for planting bombs and even for “picking up a gun and firefighting.” The juveniles are being held in Camp Cropper near Baghdad airport and are part of the nearly 26,000 detainees held by the US military across Iraq. But these youngsters, dressed in red jumpsuits, make up almost 25 percent of the 4,000 detainees held at Camp Cropper in Baghdad. The US military currently holds detainees in two prisons in Iraq, Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca in the southern port city of Basra. Camp Bucca holds most of the detainees. “These juveniles have been involved in something that is perceived as a security threat to Iraq or coalition forces,” Nevin told Agence France-Presse during a tour of Camp Cropper. The number of juvenile detainees has skyrocketed since the surge in US troops was launched in February. “In January we had around 100 juveniles. Now we have around 950,” Nevin said. Most of the youngsters have been sucked into the insurgency with threats or offers of money from Al-Qaeda, he said. “There is a lot of Al-Qaeda influence on these youngsters.” One of the commanders at Camp Cropper, Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm McMullen, said the juveniles were now part of a wide-ranging educational program launched by the military. “Many of them come from broken homes with no education,” he said. The full story in http://uruknet.info/?p=m38863&hd=&size=1&l=e

 

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW