Muslim in Suffer

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem. Assalamu\’alaikum Warohmatullahi Wabarokatuh!

Archive for January 9th, 2008

Mainstream Islamophobia

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Mainstream Islamophobia

By Syed Atiq ul Hassan – posted Monday, 7 January 2008

About 800 people gathered in Camden, New South Wales, (a suburb located in the outskirts of western Sydney) and raised their voices against the plan for an Islamic School to be built in the area.

Their demonstration was followed by a forum organised by the Christian Democratic Party and other Christian Groups. Among others, Mr Fred Nile, MP, of the Christian Democratic Party was a prominent speaker. This was supposed to be an open forum to discuss the issue of the proposed Islamic School but there was no Muslim-speaker invited.

Almost every speaker spoke against Islam and Muslims using inflammatory statements and warnings. In their support against the Islamic school the speakers described Muslims as terrorists and Islam as a religion of hatred referring to the global situation of terrorists’ attacks and bomb blasts.

The speakers argued that if the Islamic School is built in the Camden area then it would be a threat to their way of life and culture. Moreover, it was claimed the school will teach terrorism to the Muslim children. They warned that by permitting an Islamic school to be built in Camden it would encourage the Muslim community to build more Islamic centres in other areas, which would then endanger Australian society.

Since the local Islamic society lodged the application to the Camden Council for Al Amanah Islamic College, for about 1,200 students, a section of local community has continuously opposed the school’s plan and has threatened to resist it physically if the council or Environmental Court approves the school’s plan and construction goes ahead.

Last month, pig’s heads were found at the site of the proposed school.

The decision for planning approval for the proposed Islamic school is expected in March 2008. The Council has received 1,829 submissions against the school and 649 in the favour.

This is not the first time there has been resistance against the building of an Islamic Centre. In the past groups of local residents have campaigned against the development of Islamic centres or mosques at various sites.

On the other hand, Muslims in Australia have been great contributors to Australian society. History shows that from 1860 to 1930 more than 3,000 labours, cameleers and farmers were brought to Australia, from the southern and northern parts of the Indian Subcontinent (parts of which are now Pakistan), by the then English rulers. Most of these were Muslims. They were the pioneers in the development of the Australian interior infrastructure.

They were not big in numbers compared to other ethnic groups who migrated in that period from other parts of the world; however, they made a substantial contribution by opening up inland Australia. They spent their entire lives, working in remote areas, building railway tracks, bridges and highways.

In time, they and their next generations completely assimilated into Australian society while following their faith and religious obligations. The first mosque in Australia was built at Marree in northern South Australia in 1861; the second big mosque was built in Adelaide in 1890; another mosque was built in 1908 in Brisbane (Queensland); and similarly the first mosque in New South Wales was built in 1891 in Broken Hill.

According to statistical reports, there are now more than 300,000 Muslims living in Australia from various ethnic backgrounds. Fifty per cent of Australian Muslims are under the age of 25 and the majority have been educated in Australia.

This large and prominent Australia-wide community is an integral part of the Australian society. Australian Muslims have been very constructive and affirmative in building a unified and harmonious Australia. Muslim professionals, both males and females, are found in every walk of life. They are successful doctors, lawyers, technologists, journalists, educationists and so on.

Australian Muslims have always demonstrated their full commitment to maintaining harmony and unity with the other Australians. Even when in neighbouring Indonesia people were on the streets waving portraits of Osama Bin Laden and lighting American flags demonstrating against the US-led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, Australian Muslims showed their full responsibility and loyalty to Australia. From the 9-11 attacks in US to the Bali and London bomb blasts Australian Muslims loudly condemned all acts of terrorism.

The largest Muslim country of the world, Indonesia, is Australia’s next door neighbour. Australia has always had good, long-term relations with Muslim countries. And many Australian professionals work in the Middle East, enjoying generous wages.

Just like Catholic and other religious schools, Islamic schools are delivering a quality education as per the Australian educational system. According to the latest report, Malek Fahd Islamic School situated in Chullora (in Sydney) is the biggest Islamic School in Australia. Interestingly, this year, Malek Fahd Islamic School is among the top 10 high schools of New South Wales in performance. The school is at 9th position this year and was at 15th last year. Malek Fahd Islamic School is not selective, like some other private schools, yet it has shown outstanding performance providing the highest level of education.

The question is then, why does a section of the Australian community feel threatened by fellow Australians whose faith is Islam – one of the great religions of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism and Islam)? They openly express their hatred against Muslims in the media. In fact mainstream media, in Australia, has played a major role in portraying Islam and Muslims as entities of terrorism. When ordinary people look at Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida or the Taliban through media stories they think this is what Islam or Muslims are. But these fanatic groups are as dangerous for Muslims as they are for non-Muslims.

The fact is, the media has barely exposed either the amity or the enmity between Osama bin Laden and the United States. It has hardly exposed the fact that Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omer were, at one stage, backed by the CIA, which provided them with funds and ammunition to fight against Russian foreign forces in the name of Jihad for more than 10 years. And that the religious extremists seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan today are the same people who were supported by the US in the past, to establish their religious schools of thought, in the towns and cities of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The media is supposed to work in the public interest. How much the Australian media has fulfilled its responsibility to expose the tales of these people and groups is open for debate. For example, how many Australians would have known that these fundamentalists groups and individuals in Afghanistan are the result of long-term support, by way of firearms and money, from the United States?

Then, there are blatant inaccuracies involved in the casual use of terms and phrases like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorist group” the precise meaning of which requires a dissertation. Certainly these terms are crudely misrepresented by populists (Islamic and otherwise) all round the world. Islam, like other religions, is open to various interpretations, and as such it can be used to support various ends. Scholars in the field of Islamic studies know well that most informed Koranic readings need careful scholarly analysis and explanation.

The commercial media, today, can entertain the masses and simultaneously make remarkable profits. However, whether media stories promote harmony and solidarity in a multicultural Australian society is an important question for every Australian.

The recent demonstration against the plan for an Islamic school at Camden has been reported by mainstream Australian media with extensive coverage, inflammatory headlines and interviews reflecting a negative image of Islam and Muslims. Conversely, hardly any print or electronic media group has shown the other side of the story or interviews of those who want to build the Islamic School.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Pakistanis want Islamic democracy, distrust US

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Pakistanis want Islamic democracy, distrust US -poll

07 Jan 2008 02:00:23 GMT

Source: Reuters

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, Jan 6 (Reuters) – Most Pakistanis want their country to be a democratic Islamic state but are deeply distrustful of the United States and its war on terrorism, according to a poll released on Sunday.

Funded by the U.S. Institute of Peace, or USIP, the poll was taken in the nuclear-armed nation before President Pervez Musharraf’s six-week state of emergency and the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last month.

The results, released about six weeks before elections scheduled for Feb. 18, show that a large majority of Pakistanis see democracy as fully compatible with Islam, the pollsters said. Democracy ranked especially high among the 60 percent of respondents who wanted Muslim-based Sharia law to play a larger role in legal affairs.

“It shows there is no major Western-oriented secular sub-group in Pakistan. People want more Islam. They don’t think Pakistan is pious enough or that Islamic values are adequately expressed in daily life,” said Steven Kull, director of, a non-profit group affiliated with the University of Maryland that conducted the poll for USIP.

USIP is a non-partisan institution funded by Congress to address issues concerning international conflict.

The poll, which has a 3.3 percentage point margin of error, surveyed 907 adults in 19 Pakistani cities from Sept. 12-28. About 49 percent of the respondents were women.

Pakistan, which has been ruled by the military for more than half of the 61 years since independence in 1947, was under emergency rule from Nov. 3 to Dec. 15, imposed by Musharraf, then military chief as well as president, to combat what he said were threats from Islamic militants.

Kull said a large moderate middle-bloc of voters could be seen in the 64 percent of Pakistanis who said they support government reform of religious schools known as madrassas, which have been blamed for spreading Islamist militancy.

The poll showed that 59 percent of the public want to hold the line against the encroachment of conservative Muslim mores known as “Talibanization,” he said.


But the results also indicated support for Islamist militant groups including al Qaeda among substantial minorities of Pakistanis, and illustrated the huge challenge facing the Bush administration as it pursues relations with its key ally in its war on terrorism.

Over two-thirds of Pakistanis said they do not trust the United States to act responsibly in the world, while 70 percent believe definitely that it is a U.S. goal to weaken and divide the Islam.

About half disapproved of Pakistan’s relations with the United States and said Washington was in control of most or nearly all major events inside their country.

At least 60 percent of respondents agreed that al Qaeda and Taliban activities pose a threat to their country’s vital interests over the next 10 years. But more than 80 percent said the same of the U.S. military presence in Asia, including Afghanistan.

Thirty-one percent expressed a positive view of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, while another 19 percent had mixed feelings about him. Nearly 40 percent opposed capturing bin Laden if he were discovered inside Pakistan.

Fewer than one in four said Pakistan should use military force in the remote Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a region analysts describe as a refuge for the Taliban and al Qaeda and a hub for militant attacks in Afghanistan.

Forty-six percent of respondents instead favored negotiating with the Taliban, while 12 percent said Pakistani forces should be withdrawn from the region.

More than three-quarters said foreign troops should not be allowed to pursue al Qaeda or Taliban fighters inside Pakistan.

Thirty percent of Pakistanis approved of Taliban attacks on NATO troops in Afghanistan while another 18 percent had mixed feelings. Fifteen percent disapproved.

Nine percent said the current Afghan government had the best approach to governing Afghanistan, while 34 percent preferred the former Taliban regime. (Editing by Eric Beech)

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

9/11 : Sibel ‘names names’ (in pictures!)

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Sibel ‘names names’ (in pictures!)

Over at Sibel’s website, she has published “Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery” – twenty one photos of people.

Sibel doesn’t say anything about the photos – or the people in the photos – but we can reasonably presume that they are the 21 guilty people in her case.

Sibel has broken the photos into three different groups.

The first group contains current and former Pentagon and State Department officials.

Richard Perle

Douglas Feith

Eric Edelman

Marc Grossman

Brent Scowcroft

Larry Franklin

The second group is current and former congressmen

Dennis Hastert – Ex-House Speaker (R-Il)

Roy Blount – ( R, Mo)

Dan Burton – (R – IN)

Tom Lantos – (D- CA)


Bob Livingston – ex-Speaker of the House (R-LA)

Stephen Solarz (D-Ny)

The 3rd group includes people who all appear to work at think tanks – primarily WINEP, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Graham E. Fuller – RAND

David Makovsky – WINEP

Alan Makovsky – WINEP



Yusuf Turani (President-in-exile, Turkistan)

Professor Sabri Sayari (Georgetown, WINEP)

Mehmet Eymur (Former head Turkish counter-terrorism, MIT)

As you can see, there are a couple of ‘Question Marks’ instead of photos. I’m not sure why that is the case.

I’ll have some more later, obviously.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Nukes, Spooks,and the Specter of 9/11

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Nukes, Spooks,and the Specter of 9/11

We’re in big trouble if even half of what Sibel Edmonds says is true…

By Justin Raimondo


“The next president may have to deal with a nuclear attack,” averred ABC’s Charles Gibson at Saturday night’s Democratic presidential debate. “The day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it and what will we actually do on the day after?”It’s a question that frightens everyone, and one to which there is no easy answer: none of the candidates really rose to the occasion, and most seemed baffled. Hillary Clinton made sure she used the word “retaliation” with unusual emphasis, and when pressed on the question of how she would retaliate against “stateless” terrorists nevertheless insisted that she would indeed retaliate against someone, because the perpetrators had to have a “haven” somewhere within a state.Yes, well, that’s not necessarily true, but what if that “haven” is… right here in the U.S.? Or, perhaps, in a NATO country, say, Turkey?

Say what?

Impossible, you say? Not if you believe Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the FBI who listened in on hundreds of telephone intercepts and has now told the London Times that several top U.S. government officials conspired with foreign agents to steal U.S. nuclear secrets and sell them on the black market. The Times reports:

“Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of U.S. officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

“Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the U.S. State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan. The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims. However, Edmonds said: ‘He was aiding foreign operatives against U.S. interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.’

“She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents. ‘If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,’ she said.”

Edmonds brought all this to the attention of lawmakers, as well as the American media, and several news organizations filed reports – until a federal judge issued an unprecedented gag order. Edmonds’ story was deemed too hot to handle: if the public were allowed to know what she knows, according to our government, America’s national security would be severely impaired. Yet now she is speaking out, and what she has to say is unsettling, to say the least.

Edmonds has named at least one of the officials: he is Marc Grossman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, assistant secretary of state for European affairs under the Clinton administration and undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2001-2005. Grossman is now vice chairman of The Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by Bill Clinton’s defense secretary, William S. Cohen.

Edmonds contends that an international nuclear smuggling ring, associated with the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel, has been permitted to operate in the U.S. with impunity. Our government, she claims, knew all about it yet, in order to placate the foreign governments involved, allowed a vast criminal enterprise to carry out its activities, including money laundering, narcotics trafficking, and espionage involving efforts to steal U.S. nuclear technology.

As a translator for the FBI, Edmonds had the task of translating many hours of intercepted phone conversations between Turkish officials and Pakistanis, Israelis, and Americans who were targets of the FBI’s counterintelligence unit. Thousands of hours of intercepted calls revealed a network of moles placed in various military installations and academic venues dealing with nuclear technology. Edmonds gives us the details, via the Times:

“Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. ‘The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,’ she said.

“They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official [Marc Grossman] who provided some of their moles – mainly Ph.D. students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.”

And “while the FBI was investigating,” says Edmonds, “several arms of the government were shielding what was going on.” An entire wing of the national security bureaucracy, associated with the neoconservatives, has long profited from representing Turkish interests in Washington: this group includes not only Grossman, but also Paul Wolfowitz, chief intellectual architect of the Iraq war and ex-World Bank president; former deputy defense secretary for policy Douglas J. Feith; Feith’s successor, Eric Edelman; and Richard Perle, the notorious uber-neocon whose unique ability to mix profiteering and warmongering forced him to resign his official capacity as a key administration adviser.

Edmonds draws a picture of a three-sided alliance consisting of Turkish, Pakistani, and Israeli agents who coordinated efforts to milk U.S. nuclear secrets and technology, funneling the intelligence stream to the black market nuclear network set up by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The multi-millionaire Pakistani nuclear scientist then turned around and sold his nuclear assets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran.

This was no “rogue” operation, but a covert action executed by Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, the chief of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, at the time. The Turks were used as intermediaries because direct ISI intervention would have roused immediate suspicion. Large amounts of cash were dropped off at the offices of Turkish-American lobbying groups, such as the American Turkish Council in Washington, which was reportedly picked up by at least one top U.S. official.

This Pakistani-Turkish-Israeli Axis of Espionage, operating through their respective embassies, systematically combed Washington officialdom for potential moles, compiling lists that, according to Edmonds and the Times, “contained all their ‘hooking points,’ which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to.” Nice work, there.

This sounds a lot like the setup the handlers of convicted spy Larry Franklin worked with to glean information from the rabidly pro-Israel Franklin and pass it off to Israeli embassy officials, including former Israeli ambassador Danny Ayalon; Naor Gilon, the former political officer at the embassy; and Rafi Barak, the former deputy chief of mission. And there is indeed a connection to the Franklin case, according to the Times,

“One of the Pentagon figures under investigation was Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst, who was jailed in 2006 for passing U.S. defense information to lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat. ‘He was one of the top people providing information and packages during 2000 and 2001,’ [Edmonds] said.”

Franklin delivered his “packages” to AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and their Israeli handlers for ideological reasons, but others, such as Grossman – according to Edmonds – did it for money. Grossman angrily denies the charge. In any case, apparently large cash transactions were recorded on the tapes Edmonds translated, in which U.S. officials were heard selling the nation’s nuclear secrets. As the Times relates:

“Well-known U.S. officials were then bribed by foreign agents to steal U.S. nuclear secrets. One such incident from 2000 involves an agent overheard on a wiretap discussing ‘nuclear information that had been stolen from an air force base in Alabama,’ in which the agent allegedly is heard saying: ‘We have a package and we’re going to sell it for $250,000.'”

A vast criminal enterprise supported by at least three foreign intelligence agencies acting in concert with top U.S. officials, including some “household names” – if true, it’s the story of the decade. Yet that isn’t all. The really scary aspect of this labyrinthine network of foreign agents, and their American dupes and collaborators, is its connections to terrorist organizations, specifically al-Qaeda.

To begin with, Gen. Ahmad is suspected of having wired a large amount of money into Mohammed Atta’s Dubai bank account shortly before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. More ominously, the Times reports: “Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.”

Pakistani and/or Turkish operatives arrested or held for questioning in the wake of the 9/11 attacks? Well, that’s the first I’ve heard of it. However, the U.S. authorities did round up a large number of Israelis, including these guys, and held them for several months before extraditing them back to their home country.

Even more alarming is the reason Edmonds approached the Times with the story, “after reading about an al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.” That’s a reference to this Nov. 2 story in the Times, which details the career of a top al-Qaeda kingpin, one Louai al-Sakka, who claims to have trained several of the 9/11 hijackers at a camp situated outside Istanbul in the resort area of the Yalova mountains.

Now that‘s curious: a Muslim fundamentalist training camp in a country run by a fanatically secular military that would normally not tolerate such activities. As the Times puts it: “Turkish intelligence were aware of unusual militant Islamic activity in the Yalova mountains, where Sakka had set up his camps. But they posed no threat to Turkey at the time.”

Not a threat to Turkey, eh? All too true: the terrorists’ target was the U.S. The al-Qaeda recruits trained by Sakka were specifically chosen by the top leadership of al-Qaeda – i.e., bin Laden – to carry out the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. That they were nurtured and steeled for their mission under the noses of our NATO allies in Ankara seems bizarre – until one begins to take Sibel Edmonds seriously. Then the whole horrifying picture starts to fall into place.

The darkest secrets of 9/11 are buried at the end of the trail laid out in Edmonds’ testimony. As Luke Ryland, the world’s foremost expert on the Edmonds case, writes:

The Times article then notes something that I reported 18 months ago. Immediately after 911, the FBI arrested a bunch of people suspected of being involved with the attacks – including four associates of key targets of FBI’s counterintelligence operations. Sibel heard the targets tell Marc Grossman: ‘We need to get them out of the U.S. because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans.’ Grossman duly facilitated their release from jail and the suspects immediately left the country without further investigation or interrogation.

“Let me repeat that for emphasis: The #3 guy at the State Dept. facilitated the immediate release of 911 suspects at the request of targets of the FBI’s investigation.”

Corruption and a massive cover-up organized at the highest levels of government – America’s nuclear secrets and technology looted on a massive scale, and sold to our enemies via a network set up by our alleged foreign “friends,” while the threat of nuclear terrorism hangs over our country like a thick fog of fear, and warmongering politicians scare us into going along with the program – if even half of what Edmonds alleges turns out to be true, then we are all in some very big trouble.

In light of the Edmonds revelations, we have to reconsider the implications of the question Charles Gibson opened with during the ABC Democratic debate:

“The day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it and what will we actually do on the day after?”

Perhaps congressman Henry Waxman, who solemnly pledged to launch a public investigation into the allegations made by Edmonds, will wish he had kept his promise. Maybe even the national news media, which has been offered this story repeatedly, by Ms. Edmonds and her supporters, will wish they had covered it.

Fortunately, we don’t need the “mainstream” media to get the truth out to the American people. With the new technology of the computer age, we can do an end run around the media. This YouTube video is shocking: see the video!

As Edmonds says, “we have the facts, we have the documents, we have the witnesses. Put out the tapes, put out the documents, put out the intercepts – put out the truth.”

If a nuke ever goes off in an American city, it will probably have been stolen from our own arsenal – once the American people wake up to that scary fact, the rest will follow automatically.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Real 9/11 Cover-Up? Sibel Edmonds, Turkey and the Bomb

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Sibel Edmonds, Turkey and the Bomb

A Real 9/11 Cover-Up?


If a new article just published Saturday in the Times of London based upon information provided by US government whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, we have not only solid evidence of prior knowledge of 9-11 by high up US government officials, but evidence of treasonous activity by many of those same officials involving efforts to provide US nuclear secrets to America’s enemies, even including Al Qaeda.

The story also casts a chilling light on the so-called “accidental” flight of six nuclear-armed cruise missiles aboard an errant B-52 that flew last Aug. 30 from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Shreveport, Louisiana.

The Sunday Times reports that Edmonds, whose whistleblowing efforts have been studiously ignored by what passes for the news media in American news media, approached the Rupert Murdoch-owned British paper a month ago after reading a report there that an Al-Qaeda leader had been training some of the 9-11 hijackers at a base in Turkey, a US NATO alley, under the noses of the Turkish military.

Edmonds, who was recruited by the FBI after 9-11 because of her Turkish and Farsi language skills, has long been claiming that in her FBI job of covertly monitoring conversations between Turkish, Israeli, Persian and other foreign agents and US contacts, including a backlog of untranslated tapes dating back to 1997, she had heard evidence of “money laundering, drug imports and attempts to acquire nuclear and conventional weapons technology.” But the Turkish training for 9-11 rang more alarm bells and made her decide that talking behind closed doors to Congress or the FBI was not enough. She had to go public.

Edmonds claims in the Times that even as she was providing evidence of moles within the US State Department, the Pentagon, and the nuclear weapons establishment, who were providing nuclear secrets for cash, through Turkey, to Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, agencies within the Bush administration were actively working to block investigation and to shield those who were committing the acts of treason.

Pakistan’s ISI is known to have had, and to still maintain close contacts with Al-Qaeda. Indeed, the Times notes that Pakistan’s nuclear god-father, General Mahmoud Ahmad, was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

Edmonds claims, in the Times article, that following the 9-11 attacks, FBI investigators took a number of Turkish and Pakistani operatives into custody for questioning about foreknowledge of the attacks, but that a high-ranking US State Department official repeatedly acted to spirit them out of the country.

Edmonds was fired from her FBI translating job in 2002 after she accused a colleague of having illicit contact with Turkish officials. She has claimed that she was fired for being outspoken, and in 2005 her position was reportedly vindicated by the Office of Inspector General of the FBI, which concluded that she had been sacked for making valid complaints.

One of those whom Edmonds claims in the Times report was being investigated in connection with the nuclear information transfers was Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin. Franklin was convicted and jailed in 2006 for passing US defense information to American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat. Franklin, in 2001, was part of the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a kind of shadow intelligence unit set up by the Bush administration inside the Pentagon whose job it was to gin up “evidence” to justify a war against Iraq. In that capacity, he (along with several other OSP members and arch neocon schemer Michael Ledeen) was also identified by Italian investigative journalists working for the newspaper La Republican, as having been at a crucial meeting in December 2001 in Rome with the Italian defense and intelligence service ministers. La Republicca reports that at that meeting a plan was hatched to fob off forged Niger embassy documents as evidence that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger.

If Edmonds’ story is correct, and Al-Qaeda, with the aid of Turkish government agents and Pakistani intelligence, with the help of US government officials, has been attempting to obtain nuclear materials and nuclear information from the U.S., it casts an even darker shadow over the mysterious and still unexplained incident last August 30, when a B-52 Stratofortress, based at the Minot strategic air base in Minot, ND, against all rules and regulations of 40 years’ standing, loaded and flew off with six unrecorded and unaccounted for nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

That incident only came to public attention because three as yet unidentified Air Force whistleblowers contacted a reporter at the Military Times newspaper, which ran a series of stories about it, some of which were picked up by other US news organizations.

An Air Force investigation into that incident, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, claimed improbably that the whole thing had been an “accident,” but many veterans of the US Air Force and Navy with experience in handling nuclear weapons say that such an explanation is impossible, and argue that there had to have been a chain or orders from above the level of the base commander for such a flight to have occurred.

Incredibly, almost five months after that bizarre incident (which included several as yet unexplained deaths of B-52 pilots and base personnel occurring in the weeks shortly before and after the flight), in which six 150-kiloton warheads went missing for 36 hours, there has been no Congressional investigation and no FBI investigation into what happened.

Yet in view of Edmonds’ story to the London Times, alleging that there has been an ongoing, active effort for some years by both Al Qaeda and by agents of two US allies, Turkey and Pakistan, to get US nuclear weapons secrets and even weapons, and that there are treasonous moles at work within the American government and nuclear bureaucracy aiding and abetting those efforts, surely at a minimum, a major public inquiry is called for.

Meanwhile, there is enough in just this one London Times story to keep an army of investigative reporters busy for years. So why, one has to ask, is this story appearing in a highly respected British newspaper, but not anywhere in the corporate US media?

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Report: FBI translator says Israel planted nuclear ‘moles’ in U.S.

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Report: FBI translator says Israel planted nuclear ‘moles’ in U.S.

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service

A Britsh newspaper on Sunday published allegations by a former FBI translator that Israel has planted “moles” in United States institutions dealing with nuclear technology.According to the report in The Sunday Times, Sibel Edmonds worked on translating “thousands of hours of conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets” that had been secretly taped by the FBI.

The report says that the recordings, which go back more than 10 years, were used in an FBI investigation “into links between the Turks and Pakistani, Israeli and U.S. targets.”

The Times also says that Edmonds had claimed there were “senior officials in the Pentagon” who had provided assistance to Israeli and Turkish agents.Edmonds also claims, according to The Sunday Times, that the “moles,” mainly PhD students, received assistance from a “high-ranking State Department official” who gave them security clearance to work in “sensitive nuclear research facilities.”

The paper says that among these institutions was the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is “responsible for the security of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.”

According to Edmonds, the FBI investigation also stretches to the Pentagon. She also claims the involvement of former Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin, jailed in 2006 for delivering U.S. defense information to lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat.

The Times quotes her as saying that Franklin “was one of the top people providing information and packages during 2000 and 2001.”

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Zionists use Jews as Human Shields, Evidence of Israel’s “cowardly blending”

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Zionists use Jews as Human Shields

Evidence of Israel‘s “cowardly blending” comes to light

Jonathan Cook, Electronic Lebanon, 7 January 2008

It apparently never occurred to anyone in our leading human rights organizations or the Western media that the same moral and legal standards ought be applied to the behavior of Israel and Hizballah during the war on Lebanon 18 months ago. Belatedly, an important effort has been made to set that right.

A new report, written by a respected Israeli human rights organization, one representing the country’s Arab minority not its Jewish majority, has unearthed evidence showing that during the fighting Israel committed war crimes not only against Lebanese civilians — as was already known — but also against its own Arab citizens. This is an aspect of the war that has been almost entirely neglected until now.

The report also sheds a surprising light on the question of what Hizballah was aiming at when it fired hundreds of rockets on northern Israel. Until the report’s publication last month, I had been all but a lone voice arguing that the picture of what took place during the war was far more complex than generally accepted.

The new report follows a series of inquiries by the most influential human rights groups, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to identify the ways in which international law was broken during Israel‘s 34-day assault on Lebanon. However, both organizations failed to examine, except in the most cursory and dismissive way, Israel‘s treatment of its own civilians during the war. That failure may also have had serious repercussions for their ability to assess Hizballah’s actions.

Before examining the report’s revelations, it is worth revisiting the much-misrepresented events of summer 2006 and considering what efforts have been made subsequently to bring the two sides to account.

The war was the culmination of a series of tit-for-tat provocations along the shared border following Israel‘s withdrawal from its two-decade occupation of south Lebanon in 2000. Almost daily for those six years Israel behaved as though the occupation had not ended, sending war planes into Lebanese air space to create terrifying sonic booms and spy on the country. (After the war, it resumed these flights almost immediately.)

In response Hizballah, a Shia militia that offered the only effective resistance during Lebanon‘s period of occupation, maintained its belligerent posture. It warned repeatedly that it would capture Israeli soldiers, should the chance arise, in the hope of forcing a prisoner exchange. Israel had held on to a handful of Lebanese prisoners after its pullback.

Hizballah also demanded that Israel complete its withdrawal from Lebanon in full by leaving a fertile sliver of territory, the Shebaa Farms. Israel argues that the area is Syrian territory, occupied by its army along with the Golan Heights in 1967, and will be returned one day in negotiations with Damascus. UN cartographers disagree, backing Hizballah’s claim that the area is Lebanese.

The fighting began with a relatively minor incident (by regional standards) and one that was entirely predictable: Hizballah attacked a border post, capturing two soldiers and killing three more in the operation. Hizballah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah proposed a prisoner swap. Israel declared war the very same day, unleashing a massive bombing campaign that over the next month killed nearly 1,200 Lebanese civilians.

An editorial in Israel‘s leading newspaper Haaretz noted again this week that, by rejecting Hizballah’s overtures, “Israel initiated the war.”

In the last days of the fighting, as a UN-brokered ceasefire was about to come into effect, Israel dropped more than a million cluster bombs on south Lebanon, of which several hundred thousand failed to detonate. Since the end of the war, 39 Lebanese civilians have been killed and dozens more maimed from these small landmines littering the countryside.

Israel‘s own inquiry into its use of the cluster munitions wrapped up last month by exonerating the army, even while admitting that many of the bombs had been directed at civilian population centers. In Israel‘s books, it seems, international law sanctions the targeting of civilians during war.

Veteran Israeli reporter Meron Rapoport recently noted that his newspaper, Haaretz again, has evidence that the army’s use of cluster munitions was “pre-planned” and undertaken without regard to the location of Hizballah positions. The only reasonable conclusion is that Israel wanted south Lebanon uninhabitable at any cost, possibly so that another ground invasion could be mounted.

Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has carried out the most detailed examination of the war, was less forgiving than Israel‘s own investigators — as might have been expected in the case of such a flagrant abuse of the rules of war. Still, it has failed to condemn Israel‘s actions unreservedly. In a typical press release it noted the wide dispersal of cluster bombs over civilian areas of south Lebanon but concluded only that their use by Israel “may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law.”

In this and other respects, HRW’s reports have revealed troubling double standards.

Double standards

During the war two charges were leveled against Hizballah, mainly by Israel‘s supporters, and investigated by the human rights group: that the Shia militia fired rockets on northern Israel either indiscriminately or in a deliberate attempt to target civilians; and that it hid its fighters and weapons among its own Lebanese civilians (thereby conveniently justifying Israel‘s bombing of those civilians).

Hizballah was found guilty of the first charge, with HRW arguing that it was irrelevant whether or not Hizballah was trying to hit military targets in Israel as its rockets were not precision-guided. All its rockets, whatever they were aimed at, were therefore considered indiscriminate by the organization and a violation of international law. Worthy of note is that HRW expressed certainty about the impermissibility of Hizballah firing imprecise rockets but not about Israel‘s use of even less precise cluster bombs.

On the second charge Hizballah was substantially acquitted, with HRW failing to find evidence that, apart from in a handful of isolated instances, the militia hid among the Lebanese population.

Regarding Israel, the human rights organizations investigated the charge that it violated international law by endangering Lebanese civilians during its bombing campaigns. Given that Israel‘s missiles and bombs were supposed to have pinpoint accuracy, the large death toll of Lebanese civilians provided indisputable evidence of Israeli war crimes. HRW agreed.

Strangely, however, after submitting both Israel and Hizballah to the same test of whether their firepower targeted civilians, HRW deemed it inappropriate to investigate Israel on the second allegation faced by Hizballah: that it committed a war crime by blending in with its own civilian population. Was there so little prima facie evidence of such behavior on Israel‘s side that the organization decided it was not worth wasting its resources on such an inquiry?

HRW produced two lengthy reports in August 2007, one examining events in Lebanon and the other events in Israel. But the report on what happened inside Israel, “Civilians under Assault,” failed to examine Israel‘s treatment of its own civilians and focused instead only on proving that Hizballah’s firing of its rockets violated international law.

HRW did make a brief reference to the possibility that Israeli military installations were located close to or inside civilian communities. It cited examples of a naval training base next to a hospital in Haifa and a weapons factory built in a civilian community. Its researchers even admitted to watching the Israeli army firing shells into Lebanon from a residential street of the Jewish community of Zarit.

This act of “cowardly blending” by the Israeli army — to echo the UN envoy Jan Egeland’s unwarranted criticism of Hizballah — was a war crime. It made Israeli civilians a potential target for Hizballah reprisal attacks.

So what was HRW’s position on this gross violation of the rules of war it had witnessed? After yet again denouncing Hizballah for its rocket attacks, the report was mealy-mouthed: “Given that indiscriminate fire [by Hizballah], there is no reason to believe that Israel‘s placement of certain military assets within these cities added appreciably to the risk facing their residents.”

In other words, Israel‘s culpability in hiding its war machine inside civilian communities did not need to be assessed on its own terms as a violation of international law. Instead Israel was let off the hook based on the assumption that Hizballah’s rockets were incapable of hitting such positions. It is dubious, to put it mildly, whether this is a legitimate reading of international law.

An additional criticism, one that I made on several occasions during the war, was that Israel failed to protect its Arab communities from rocket attacks by ensuring they had bomb shelters or early warning systems — unlike Jewish communities. On this issue, the HRW report had only this to say: “Human Rights Watch did not investigate whether Israel discriminated among Jewish and Arab residents of the north in the protection it provided from Hizballah attacks.”

Of Hizballah’s indiscrimination, HRW was certain; of Israel‘s discrimination, it held back from judgment.

New evidence

Fortunately, we no longer have to rely on Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International for a full picture of what took place during what Israelis call the Second Lebanon War. Last month the Arab Association for Human Rights, based in Nazareth, published its own report, “Civilians in Danger,” covering the ground its much bigger cousins dared not touch.

The hostile climate in Israel towards the fifth of the population who are Arab has made publication of the report a risky business. Azmi Bishara, Israel‘s leading Arab politician and a major critic of Israel‘s behavior during the Lebanon war, is currently in exile under possible death sentence. Israel has accused him of treason in helping Hizballah during the fighting, though the secret services have yet to produce the evidence they have supposedly amassed against him. Nonetheless they have successfully intimidated most of the Arab minority into silence.

Also, much of the report’s detail, including many place-names and maps showing the location of Hizballah rocket strikes, has had to be excised to satisfy Israel’s strict military censorship laws.

But despite these obstacles, the Human Rights Association has taken a brave stand in unearthing the evidence to show that Israel committed war crimes by placing much of its military hardware, including artillery positions firing into Lebanon, inside and next to Arab towns and villages. These were not isolated instances but a discernible pattern.

The threat to which this exposed Arab communities was far from as theoretical as HRW supposes. Some 660 Hizballah rockets landed on 20 Arab communities in the north, apparently surprising Israeli officials, who believed Hizballah would not target fellow Arabs. Of the 44 Israeli civilians killed by the rockets, 21 were Arab citizens.

Israel has cited these deaths as further proof that Hizballah’s rocket fire was indiscriminate. The Human Rights Association, however, reaches a rather different conclusion, one based on the available evidence. Its research shows a clear correlation between an Arab community having an Israeli army base located next to it and the likelihood of it being hit by Hizballah rockets. In short, Arab communities targeted by Hizballah were almost exclusively those in which the Israeli army was based.

“The study found that the Arab towns and villages that suffered the most intensive attacks during the war were ones that were surrounded by military installations, either on a permanent basis or temporarily during the course of the war,” the report states.

Such findings lend credibility to complaints made during the war by Israel’s Arab legislators, including Bishara himself, that Arab communities were being used as “human shields” by the Israeli army — possibly to deter Hizballah from targeting its positions.

In early August 2006, Bishara told the Israeli Maariv newspaper: “What ordinary citizens are afraid to say, the Arab Knesset members are declaring loudly. Israel turned the Galilee and the Arab villages in particular into human shields by surrounding them with artillery positions and missile batteries.”

Such violations of the rules of war were occasionally hinted at in reporting in the Israeli media. In one account from the front line, for example, a reporter from Maariv quoted parents in the Arab village of Fassuta complaining that children were wetting their beds because of the frightening bark of tanks stationed outside their homes.

According to the Human Rights Association’s report, Israel made its Arab citizens vulnerable to Hizballah’s rockets in the following ways:

  • Permanent military bases, including army camps, airfields and weapons factories, as well as temporary artillery positions that fired thousands of shells and mortars into southern Lebanon were located inside or next to many Arab communities.
  • The Israeli army trained soldiers inside northern Arab communities before and during the war in preparation for a ground invasion, arguing that the topography in these communities was similar to the villages of south Lebanon.
  • The government failed to evacuate civilians from the area of fighting, leaving Arab citizens particularly in danger. Almost no protective measures, such as building public shelters or installing air raid sirens, had been taken in Arab communities, whereas they had been in Jewish communities.
  • Under the protocols to the Geneva Conventions, parties to a conflict must “avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas” and must “endeavor to remove the civilian population … from the vicinity of military objectives.” The Human Rights Association report clearly shows that Israel cynically broke these rules of war.

Tarek Ibrahim, a lawyer and the author of the Association’s report, says the most surprising finding is that Hizballah’s rockets mostly targeted Arab communities where military installations had been located and in the main avoided those where there were no such military positions.


“Hizballah claimed on several occasions that its rockets were aimed primarily at military targets in Israel. Our research cannot prove that to be the case but it does give a strong indication that Hizballah’s claims may be true.”


Although Hizballah’s Katyusha rockets were not precision-guided, the proximity of Israeli military positions to Arab communities “are within the margin of error of the rockets fired by Hizballah,” according to the report. In most cases, such positions were located either inside the community itself or a few hundred meters from it.


In its recommendations, the Human Rights Association calls for the removal of all Israeli military installations from civilian communities.


(Again noteworthy is the fact that Israel has built several weapons factories inside Arab communities, including in Nazareth. Arab citizens are almost never allowed to work in Israel‘s vast military industries, so why build them there? Part of the reason is doubtless that they provide another pretext for confiscating Arab communities’ lands and “Judaizing” them. But is the criticism by Arab legislators of “human shielding” another possible reason?)


The report avoids dealing with the wider issue of whether the Israeli army located in Jewish communities too during the war. Ibrahim explains: “In part the reason was that we are an Arab organization and that directs the focus of our work. But there is also the difficulty that Israeli Jews are unlikely to cooperate with our research.”


Israel has longed boasted of its “citizen army,” and in surveys Israeli Jews say they trust the military more than the country’s parliament, government and courts.


Nonetheless, the report notes, there is ample evidence that the army based itself in some Jewish communities too. As well as the eyewitness account of the Human Rights Watch researcher, it was widely reported during the war that 12 soldiers were killed when a Hizballah rocket struck the rural community of Kfar Giladi, close to the northern border.


A member of the kibbutz, Uri Eshkoli, recently told the Israeli media: “We deserve a medal of honor for our assistance during the war. We opened our hotel to soldiers and asked for no compensation. Moreover, soldiers stayed in the kibbutz throughout the entire war.”


In another report, in The Guardian newspaper, a 19-year-old British Jew, Danny Young, recounted his experiences performing military service during the war. He lived on Kibbutz Sasa, close to the border, which became an army rear base. “We were shooting missiles from the foot of this kibbutz,” he told the paper. “We were also receiving Katyushas.”


So far the Human Rights Association’s report has received minimal coverage in the Hebrew media. “We are facing a very difficult political atmosphere in Israel at the moment,” Ibrahim told me. “Few people inside Israel want to hear that their army and government broke international law in such a flagrant manner.”


It seems few in the West, even the guardians of human rights, are ready to hear such a message either.


Jonathan Cook is a journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest book “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” will be published next month. His website is


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan’s future : Benazir Corrupt and Pro-Imperialist

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan’s future : Benazir Corrupt and Pro-Imperialist
Mazda Majidi, Party for Socialism and Liberation–
bhuttobush.jpgBenazir Bhutto with George H.W. Bush in 1989
January 5, 2008Behind the official government-media story

On Dec. 27, 2007, Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s former prime minister was assassinated. Reports immediately following the assassination indicated that bullets were shot by a sniper, followed by a suicide bombing.

The justified outrage of the Pakistani people, the majority of whom put the blame for Benazir’s assassination squarely on the shoulders of the military, is more an indictment of the U.S.-client military dictatorship than an endorsement of Benazir’s democratic credentials.

Corporate media outlets immediately adopted the imperialist narrative laid out by President Bush and other imperialist leaders that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack and that Benazir had been an untiring fighter for democracy. Implicit in this narrative is that Pakistani people with their backward Islamists were not quite ready for “Lady Democracy.” Even liberal “left” individuals and forces have been heaping praise on Benazir and brandishing her “democratic” credentials.

Indeed, the Bhutto family in Pakistan is well-known for its struggle for independence and popular reforms. Benazir’s father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founded the Pakistan People’s Party, a party that to this day owes its popularity to leading the struggle of Pakistani masses against Pakistan’s U.S.-client military dictatorship. Bhutto, the father, was president from 1971 to 1973 and prime minister from 1973 to 1977.

Propelled to power by massive protests against the Pakistani regime, Bhutto moved Pakistan toward independence and in the direction of the non-aligned countries. During his tenure, profound reforms were implemented including nationalizations of industries and land reforms, benefiting Pakistan’s working class and poor.

But in July 1977, U.S.-supported Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, staged a coup, arrested Bhutto and halted his political program. With mass protests of the early 70s subsiding, Bhutto’s reforms were more than Pakistan’s ruling class was willing to give as concessions. In April 1979, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq hanged Bhutto.

Benazir’s brothers, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, continued the father’s legacy of struggle for independence and against imperialist domination through military dictatorship. In 1981, the Bhutto brothers hijacked a Pakistani passenger plane, flew it to Afghanistan—under a revolutionary government at the time—and demanded that Pakistan’s political prisoners be released.

Benazir: corrupt, pro-imperialist

In her ascension to political power, the Oxford-educated Benazir exhibited few signs of adhering to the family legacy of struggle. Benazir first was elected prime minister in 1988 but was dismissed in 1990 over corruption charges. She became prime minister again in 1993 until three years later when she was again removed from power over persistent scandals of corruption.

During her five years as prime minister, Benazir Bhutto did not implement any reforms of the type that had made her father popular among Pakistani masses. As for independence, Benazir was a reliable ally of the United States, heavily involved in Pakistan’s support of counterrevolutionary forces in Afghanistan, the Mujahedeen and later the Taliban.

During her tenure, Pakistan’s infamous security force, Inter Services Intelligence, the ISI, assassinated Benazir’s brother, Murtaza. Murtaza had been an outspoken critic of his sister’s conciliatory line and a proponent of the return of the PPP to its root values. Benazir’s reaction to her brother’s assassination was to whitewash the crime and to arrest and silence the witnesses.

The most lasting legacy of Benazir Bhutto’s two periods as prime minister was corruption. Through various scams, Benazir and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, took advantage of their positions to further impoverish Pakistan’s masses and plunder the country’s resources into their foreign bank accounts in Dubai and Britain. Benazir had appointed her husband to the lucrative post of minister of industry.

Benazir was forced to live in exile to flee corruption charges. She was sentenced in a Pakistani court for failure to appear, leading to a 2006 Interpol request for her arrest.

Of course, corruption among Pakistan’s political elite is hardly limited to Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s other former prime minister who was removed by Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 coup, is also implicated in rampant corruption scandals. Further, Pakistan’s military leaders, Musharraf and his cronies as well as their predecessors, historically have been involved in fleecing Pakistan’s resources for personal gain.

In exile, Benazir signed a pact with Nawaz Sharif, vowing never to collaborate with Musharraf and to settle for nothing less than the dismantling of military dictatorship. She wasted little time in breaking her vow in 2007, when the instability of Musharraf’s regime forced him to reach out to her. In a U.S.-British brokered deal, the path was paved for Benazir’s return to nominal power. Musharraf, having just been elected president in another sham election, signed a presidential order, the National Reconciliation Ordinance, and gave amnesty to Benazir against all pending corruption charges.

But Musharraf was faced with the likelihood of the Supreme Court decertifying his election as president. According to Pakistan’s constitution, the head of the military is ineligible to run for the office of the presidency. Musharraf declared martial law and removed all the Supreme Court justices. The justices illegally appointed by Musharraf validated his presidency.

Following the imposition of the martial law, Benazir wavered in her alliance with Musharraf, responding to a wave of mass protests, as well as pressure from the ranks of her own party, the PPP. During this period, Musharraf temporarily placed her under house arrest and prevented her from addressing political rallies.

But U.S. undersecretary of state, John Negroponte, made a trip to Pakistan. For years, Musharraf has been touting his record as a supporter of the U.S. “war on terror.” Benazir’s competing claim was that civilian rule under her equally compliant governance would be the best way for the United States to confront “terrorism.” Negroponte’s trip solidified the Bhutto-Musharraf collaboration and the stage was set for elections in early January 2008, with the anticipated outcome being Benazir Bhutto becoming prime minister and Musharraf maintaining his presidency. This pro-imperialist block of Pakistan’s ruling class would maintain power under the watchful eye of the military, albeit with a democratic facelift.

Military and the ruling class

The military has been an integral part of Pakistan’s political structure since British colonialism formed the country. When the military has not held direct political power, it has stood ready to intervene and retake direct military rule. As such, the military has scarcely trusted any civilian leaders, Bhutto, Sharif or any others. Musharraf himself has been less than committed to his alliance with Benazir, allowing her back into the country only begrudgingly, under pressure from the United States.

While eager to prove its value and loyalty to its U.S. masters, Pakistan’s military leaders are eager to maintain their rule and suppress Pakistani masses as they see fit. Client states see their interests tied to imperialist powers. But, they also know that imperialists will easily sacrifice even their most loyal servants when it suits their interests. It is clear that Pakistan’s military leaders were not as convinced as their imperialist masters of the virtues of relinquishing direct political rule in the interest of survival and stability.

Musharraf, Bush and others have been quick to implicate Al Qaeda for the assassination of Benazir. However, Mehsud, leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, and Jamaat Islami, another fundamentalist Islamic group, have denied any involvement. Had Al Qaeda carried out this high-profile assassination, one would expect it to eagerly take responsibility, as it has in similar cases in the past. The convenient accusation that Al Qaeda carried out the assassination seems unconvincing. In fact, Bhutto’s husband has flatly rejected the claim that his wife’s assassination was the work of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Following the first assassination attempt on Oct. 18, 2007, Bhutto put the responsibility on “certain individuals who abuse their positions.” She even sent Musharraf a letter containing a list of people in the “government and Pakistan security forces” conspiring against her.

Benazir Bhutto did not represent the aspirations of the Pakistani people for independence and social justice. Nor did she represent a movement for democracy, even bourgeois-democracy in a formal sense. Her assassination is an indication of the unwillingness of a deeply entrenched U.S.-client military, unwilling to share political power even with loyal opposition forces representing class interests not contradictory with its own class character.

Through their continued struggle, Pakistanis will push for real democracy, removing the yoke of imperialist domination and empowering the masses against their foreign and domestic exploiters, in or out of uniform. Along this path, the legacy of the Bhutto family—excluding Benazir and her pro-imperialist political record—will serve as an inspiration.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Most powerful Sunni insurgent group in Iraq vows to fight American troops ‘to the end’

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Iraq’s Islamic Army rejects links with ‘Awakening’

Most powerful Sunni insurgent group in Iraq vows to fight American troops ‘to the end’.

Herve Bar, Middle East Online



BAGHDAD, January 7, 2008

The Islamic Army, the main Sunni insurgent group in Iraq, is adamant it will not make common cause with the Sunni militias tackling Al-Qaeda with US support, and will instead fight the Americans “to the end.”

“The Islamic Army has nothing to do with the Awakening councils,” Ibrahim al-Shimmari, official spokesman of the Islamic Army in Iraq, said in an email interview.

“No one can be a member of the Islamic Army and the Awakening at the same time. Our war is for self-defence and we are targeting those who attacked us.”

The Islamic Army is branded a terrorist group by the US military and has been implicated in a number of high-profile kidnappings and gruesome beheadings since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

French academic Jean-Pierre Filiu, an expert on the insurgency, says there are signs of cross-membership between the Awakening and the Islamic Army.

“On the evidence, the Islamic Army has a foot in these militia,” Filiu said. “And in any case, they do not fight them.”

According to Shimmari, the so-called Sahwa or Awakening forces — Sunni paramilitaries organised by the US military to fight Al-Qaeda — have emerged due to the “misconduct” of Al-Qaeda.

Made up largely of former insurgents, the Awakening councils began their rise more than a year ago in the west of the country, where they put Al-Qaeda to flight.

They have since proliferated in Baghdad and to the north of the capital with American military support.

“The occupation forces seized the opportunity (the conflict between Al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgents) and supported the Awakening to help the troop ‘surge’ strategy of (US President George W.) Bush,” said Shimmari.

Founded in February 2004, the Islamic Army (Al-Jaish Al-Islamy) has become Iraq’s most powerful Sunni insurgent group.

Well-established in the west and mainly Sunni centre-north of the country, the movement represents the nationalist wing of the country’s “resistance.”

It is responsible for many attacks against US and Iraqi forces, and posts videos of its lethal exploits on the Internet almost daily.

Since 2006, its fighters have been battling with Al-Qaeda jihadists who have tried to rule over the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.

“Our fighters are often the target of Al-Qaeda attacks, forcing us to respond,” said Shimmari. “We think that what has affected the resistance is the internal fighting that Al-Qaeda has waged against other factions.

“So we have changed our tactics, from focusing on a large number of operations to more selective, intelligence-based operations.”

Shimmari bemoaned what he said was the absence of a legitimate political process in Iraq.

“All the political measures since the occupation, such as the elections and the referendum on the constitution (in October 2005), have been instituted in the interests of the occupier,” he said.

The Islamic Army has no intention of joining the political process “under the occupation.”

The formation in April 2007 of the “Reform and Jihad Front”, which groups four Sunni insurgent groups including the Islamic Army, was “to activate the resistance and to unify our political vision.”

The resistance, said Shimmari, is a “continuous and the natural response to the violence of the occupation forces.”

“But we are against killing any innocent people. Our policy is not to target innocent people but to defend them,” said the spokesman, adding that not all operations against civilians are carried out by Al-Qaeda.

“Shiite militias supported by Iran and death squads are still playing a large role in the violence,” he said, adding however that violence across Iraq has dropped because “the US exerted pressure on Iran.”

“We realise that our battle will not be a short one. We will resist the US forces as long as they are in Iraq, until the departure of the last American soldier from our country.”

The US military in Iraq describes the Islamic Army as a “terrorist group”.

“It conducts a brutally violent campaign against foreigners within Iraq, specifically anyone believed to be cooperating with the US-led coalition,” the military says on its website.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Fog of War Crimes – Slaughtering 24 Civilians

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

The Fog of War Crimes – Slaughtering 24 Civilians

Who’s to blame when ‘just following orders’ means murder?

Frida Berrigan


January 7, 2008

A Marine squad was on a dusty road in Iraq, far from home. Suddenly, a deadly roadside bomb explodes the early morning calm and kills a lance corporal and wounds two other Marines. The mission: tend to the wounded and find those who were responsible … Or make someone pay? Three sleeping families awaken to the sound of grenades and guns.

By the end of the “operation,” 24 people were dead, including three women and six children. Bullets, fired at close range, tore through bodies and lodged deep in walls. A one-legged elderly man was shot nine times in the chest and abdomen. A man who watched the violence from his roof across the road told The Washington Post that he heard his neighbor speak to the Marines in English, begging for the lives of his wife and children, saying, “I am friend. I am good.” All the family was killed except one: 13–year-old Safa. Covered in her mother’s blood, she reportedly fainted and appeared dead.

In a road nearby lay the bodies of five men–four college students and their driver.

On Nov. 20, 2005, a Marine spokesman reported: “A U.S. Marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another.”

The only truth in that statement was that there was a roadside bomb and that a Marine–Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, known as T.J. to the other men in his squad–was killed instantly. The rest was a lie. It took months for the truth to come out, and the search for justice is taking even longer. The 24 Iraqi bodies have since been buried in a cemetery in Haditha, a farming town beside the Euphrates River. But no one–from the commander on down–has been sentenced to prison, and the effort to hold Marines responsible for this crime has focused on a few men who are low on the chain of command.

Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel and a professor at Southern Texas College of Law, says the laws of war work because “for every case of atrocities that we read about, there are thousands of Marines and soldiers who act with restraint.”

The Laws of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions were designed as the basis for military conduct in times of war. Three central principles govern armed conflict: military necessity, distinction (soldiers must engage only valid military targets) and proportionality (the loss of civilian lives and property damage must not outweigh the military advantage sought). Among other things, the Geneva Conventions identify grave breaches of international law as the “willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; willful causing of great suffering; and extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully or wantonly.” An examination of the military’s actions in the aftermath of Haditha reveals a clear unwillingness to apply these principles.

Whose neck is on the line?

“You stop war crimes by coming down on the ranking officer,” says Ian Cuth-bertson, a military historian and senior fellow at the World Policy Institute.

“All armies in all wars at all times have committed war crimes,” he continues. “The question is: Does command authority condone or stop them? You can’t just give an 18-year-old an automatic weapon and tell him, ‘Don’t shoot prisoners in the head.’ You need an officer to rein him in. The officer needs to feel as though his own neck is on the line.”

In the case of Haditha, Marines have not put officers’ necks on the line. Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, who was in charge of Marines in Haditha in 2005, along with his chief of staff Col. Richard Sokoloski and Col. Stephen Davis, who headed the regimental combat team, all received letters of censure from the secretary of the U.S. Navy. The censure did not strip the men of their rank or salary, but they will be barred from future promotions, which could force them out of the Marines. According to Gary Solis, a military law expert and former Marine, censure is the Marine Corps’ most serious administrative sanction.

But, as Cuthbertson points out, the generals are not being censured for letting Haditha happen. They are being punished for not investigating. This is a big difference.

Cuthbertson cites the Allied response to the Malmedy massacre in Belgium as one example of taking war crimes seriously up the chain of command. In 1944, German soldiers killed more than 70 unarmed U.S. prisoners of war. In war crimes trials after Germany was defeated, justice was swift and extended far beyond those who actually pulled triggers. “The commander of the regiment wasn’t there. He was found guilty and sentenced to death,” says Cuthbertson. “The general of the Army wasn’t there. He was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.”

Unraveling the massacre

In January 2006–a month after the Haditha massacre–an Iraqi journalism student gave Time magazine a video of the bloody aftermath. Taher Thabet shot footage in the homes and at the morgue, recording the carnage in shaky frames. Time passed the footage on to the chief military spokesman in Baghdad, forcing the Marines to launch an investigation. Until the evidence was in their hands (and widely available on the Internet), they appeared ready to accept as truth the flimsy, contradictory account of events cobbled together by the squad leader and his men.

Two months later, the investigation determined that Marines–not insurgents–killed the civilians, and Naval Criminal Investigative Services further concluded that the civilians were deliberately targeted. CNN reported on the investigations on March 16, and Time published a long article on March 27. President Bush, however, did not address the Haditha issue until June 1, when he called the allegations “very troubling for me and equally troubling for our military.”

But it took until December 2006 for eight Marines to be charged: four enlisted men with unpremeditated murder, and four officers with dereliction for covering up or failing to report the killings. These indictments helped the Marines create the impression that those responsible for Haditha were rigorously prosecuted. Yet the four charged with murder were not the only four who pulled triggers that day. And the four officers charged in the cover up were not the only four who lied.

In handing down the eight indictments, the Marines also granted immunity to at least seven others who either participated in the killings or tried to hide what the squad had done. The military ultimately offered immunity deals to two of those charged with murder in exchange for their damning testimony. Charges against two of the officers were also dismissed after their “Article 32 hearings,” a sort of a half trial, half grand-jury proceeding unique to military criminal proceedings.

At this point, criminal responsibility for 24 murders in at least four separate locations is being placed on two Marines: Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum. Of their squad of 13, they are the only two who face general court martial for the killings.

Tatum, from Edmund, Okla., is charged with involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. His trial date has not been set, but if found guilty of all three, Tatum could face a maximum 19 years in confinement, a dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pay. During his July 24, 2007 military investigation hearing, the 25-year-old Marine choked back tears, saying, “I am not comfortable with the fact that I might have shot a child. I don’t know if my rounds impacted anyone. … That is a burden I will have to bear.”

For his part, Wuterich, the Marine squad leader, was originally indicted with more than a dozen counts of unpremeditated murder, as well as soliciting another to commit an offense and making false official statements, which carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. After his Article 32 hearing in August 2007, Investigating Officer Lt. Paul Ware recommended dismissing 10 murder charges and reducing seven others to negligent homicide. There has not been a determination on that recommendation, and a court martial date has not yet been set. Wuterich told CBS’s “60 Minutes”: “Everyone visualizes me as a monster–a baby killer, cold-blooded, that sort of thing.” On the TV screen, he was handsome, polished and impossibly young looking.

Of the other four charged with the lesser offense of failing to report the incident, or obstructing the investigation–only two remain under indictment. One of them, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, is the most senior U.S. servicemen to face a court martial for action in combat since Vietnam. He is not being charged for allowing the crimes to happen, but for violating a lawful order and willful dereliction of duty for failing to report and investigate the deaths.

In cold blood?

The cases will hinge not on what happened or why, but how: Was it a rage-induced rampage or a by-the-book operation? The answer to that question depends on which side of the gun you’re on.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who chairs the Subcommittee on Defense in the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters in May 2006 that the investigations would reveal that “our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

But soldiers are not supposed to kill in cold blood. “War is not a license,” wrote Telford Taylor, a lead-prosecutor at Nuremberg, in Vietnam, an American Tragedy. “It does not countenance the infliction of suffering for its own sake or for revenge.”

Thabet, the Iraqi journalism student who filmed the aftermath at Haditha, saw rage, telling Time: “They not only killed people, they smashed furniture, tore down wall hangings and when they took prisoners, they treated them very roughly. This was not a precise military operation.”

Not so, says Wuterich. “We reacted to how we were supposed to react to our training and I did that to the best of my ability,” he told “60 Minutes.” “The rest of the Marines that were there, they did their job properly as well. We cleared these houses the way they were supposed to be cleared.” Lt. William Kallop ordered Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich to “clear” one of the homes. He was granted immunity from future prosecution in exchange for his testimony.

Another Marine, Lance Cpl. Humberto Manuel Mendoza, who was not indicted, told investigators that he shot at least two people: “I was following my training that all individuals in a hostile house are to be shot.” Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, whose murder charges were dropped in exchange for his testimony against Wuterich, testified that after riddling dead bodies with automatic fire, he urinated on the head of one corpse. “I know it was a bad thing what I done, but I done it because I was angry T.J. was dead.”

‘I was just following orders’

Justifying crimes with assertions that “we reacted to how we were supposed to react to our training” is not new. It echoes Befehl ist Befehl–I was just following orders–words Nazi leaders accused of war crimes used to justify their actions. The Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II found many of them guilty, sentencing them to death or life in prison.

The tribunals placed the conscience of the individual above the will of military superiors. “In the military, there is a culture of compliance, fear, blind obedience, silence,” says Camilo Mejía, 32, who joined the Army when he was 19 and went to prison rather than return to Iraq. Mejía served in the Florida National Guard and went to Iraq as staff sergeant in 2003. “Behavior is suggested and implied. The expectation is that if everyone else is doing it, you should do it.”

At a detention facility in Al Assad, Mejía’s unit was responsible for keeping prisoners awake for long periods of time in preparation for interrogation. In an interview, he described their job as “sleep deprivation with loud sounds, mock executions, treating them as sub-humans.” His unit performed this long enough to “see that this was a systematic problem from the very top,” says Mejía. “They had set the tone and the work. We just followed suit. No one sat us down and said, ‘We want you to commit war crimes.’ But they communicated what we were supposed to do, and that was war crimes.”

In June 2004, Mejía told CBS’s “60 Minutes II” about the 12 or 13 Iraqis he and his men killed in Ramadi, mostly civilians caught in the crossfire. “Whether you want to admit it or not to yourself, this is a human being,” Mejía. “And I saw this man go down and I saw him being dragged through a pool of his own blood and that shocked me.”

In war, Mejía says, “committing war crimes is what you are expected to do.”


The month after the Haditha massacre became news, the Marines found themselves shamed by another atrocity. On April 26, 2006, Marines based in Hamdaniya dragged Hashim Ibrahim Awad, a 52-year-old man and father of 11 children, from his home in the middle of the night, bound his hands and feet and shot him to death. The Marines’ plan was to snatch a suspected insurgent said to be behind a rash of roadside bombings and who had been repeatedly captured but released. When the Marines could not find him, they kidnapped and killed the man’s neighbor instead. Later, they stole an AK-47 and staged the scene so that it appeared that Awad was caught while deploying a roadside bomb.

Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman–who became known as the Camp Pendleton Eight–were charged in the case. During the Article 32 hearings, defense attorneys said the Marines’ superiors told them they were too soft. They had witnessed their superiors beating Iraqi suspects and felt pressured to be more aggressive in an environment where roadside bombs and attacks were constant and assailants melted in and out of the civilian population. Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington testified that the men were “sick of” their rules of engagement and decided “to write our own rules to keep ourselves alive.”

Trent Thomas, a corporal from East St. Louis charged in the case, appeared on “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees.” When asked if he was ordered to kill Awad: “I really can’t say,” Thomas responded, but later allowed, “I think your leadership plays a huge factor in what you do. That’s all I can say.”

Thomas was demoted to private and received a bad conduct discharge.

Only two of the Camp Pendleton Eight remain in prison. Pennington is expected to serve eight years on a 14-year sentence after a plea agreement, and Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins was sentenced to 15 years. But Gen. James Mattis–the same convening authority who made determinations in the Haditha killings–is reportedly considering reducing both sentences.

Abu Ghraib

The world learned about Abu Ghraib from the photos. Piles of naked bodies. A man leashed like a dog. A hooded figure standing on a box with wires hanging from him. A menacing dog inches from a cringing man’s face.

Assertions that the torture was the result of sadistic, bored or under-supervised soldiers have been widely discredited. “There is no way that a handful of low-ranking soldiers could have invented techniques all by themselves that, curiously enough, were used at Guantánamo and at other places in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Stjepan Mestrovic, a sociologist at Texas A&M University.

After months of cover-up, the blame was laid at the feet of several low-ranked soldiers, pictured grinning and giving the thumbs-up. Pvt. Lynndie England and Spc. Charles Graner were tried, convicted and sentenced to three and 10 years, respectively. Seven others have been sentenced for abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Only 54 military personnel–a fraction of the more than 600 U.S. personnel implicated in detainee abuse cases throughout Iraq and elsewhere in the war on terror–have been convicted by court martial. And only 40 have been sentenced to prison time, many for less than a year, according to a 2006 analysis by the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project. No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility.

International law limps into the breach

Military prosecutors have won convictions against soldiers and Marines in more than 200 cases of violent crimes, including murder, rape and assault against Iraqi civilians, according to a July 27, 2007 New York Times analysis. In some cases, these convictions may come with severe sentences. Federal prosecutors are said to be seeking the death penalty for former Pvt. Stephen Green, who is accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, as well as slaying her parents and younger sister. He will be tried as a civilian because he was discharged before the crimes came to light. This horrific crime is the subject of Brian de Palma’s new movie Redacted.

But seeking the death penalty for Green, sentencing Hutchins to 15 years or court-martialing Wuterich for multiple unpremeditated murders is not the same as seeking justice for war crimes. These three should be held responsible, but the scales of justice are tipped toward scapegoating the convenient foils. They have committed awful and criminal acts, but their guilt cannot be easily separated from those who are the architects of the war.

In November 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a nonprofit legal and educational organization, filed a criminal complaint, asking a German federal prosecutor to open “a criminal prosecution that will look into the responsibility of high-ranking U.S. officials for authorizing war crimes in the context of the so-called war on terror,” according to a CCR statement. On behalf of 12 Iraqi citizens whom the U.S. military detained and tortured at Abu Ghraib, the complaint names former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking U.S. officials. The German court dismissed the case in April 2007, ruling that a U.S. court should hear the charges. But CCR–along with other groups–have filed similar charges in Sweden, Argentina and France.

“This is a case of universal jurisdiction,” says Belinda Cooper, editor of War Crimes: The Legacy of Nuremberg and a professor of human rights and international law at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, “It’s brought under the theory that any country can take jurisdiction of particularly heinous crimes, especially if the country that would normally prosecute them is unlikely to do so.” She continues: “But can you imagine Bush being tried in the U.S. or Putin in Russia for, say, torture of detainees during their administrations? The new international criminal court is not going to touch a Putin or a Bush.”

While these projects inch forward, soldiers are taking matters into their own hands. In March 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will convene new Winter Soldier hearings, modeled on the February 1971 meetings in a Detroit Howard Johnson’s. In the shadow of the My Lai massacre revelations, the hearings provided a platform to more than 125 Vietnam veterans to describe the atrocities they participated in and witnessed. This effort could once again give the United States a chance to listen to soldiers and Marines as they break the silence, hold themselves and each other accountable and demand the same from the architects of the war.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The answer to ‘Why they hate us’, America are you listening?

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

The answer to ‘Why they hate us’, America are you listening?




January 8, 2008

The information in this video and the news report that an Iraqi soldier killed a “US captain and another sergeant, and wounded three others” for brutalizing Iraqi women, one of which who was pregnant, should answer the question that many Americans have been asking for a number of years.

Through the following video, which will give you a better idea of the atrocity that is being committed, you can follow US Troops while they conduct Iraqi House Raids: see the video!

Hope the above information helps to clarify the situation.

The full stor in
Hope the above information helps to clarify the situation.


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Monday, 7 January 2008

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Monday, 7 January 2008

Translated and/or compiled by Muhammad Abu Nasr, member, editorial board, the Free Arab Voice.

  • Sectarian murder spree continues: seven bodies found dumped around Baghdad on Monday.
  • Four collaborator “Awakening” police killed in bomb attack in al-Baghdadi.
  • Commander of collaborator “Awakening” police in al-A’zamiyah district of Baghdad killed in ambush.
  • Commander of collaborator “Awakening” police in al-A’zamiyah district of Baghdad killed with nine others in car bomb attack Monday.
  • US troops ransack kindergarten in Madinat as-Sadr in Baghdad Monday.
  • US troops raid home of religious shaykh in Baghdad, steal money, phones, smash furniture.
  • US admits death of American soldier in southern Baghdad Sunday night.
  • Car bomber kills two collaborator “Awakening” policemen in checkpoint attack in northern Baghdad.
  • Bomber in explosive belt kills puppet police, “Awakening” collaborators in Ba’qubah.
  • Two US troops reported killed by Iraqi sharpshooter in Tikrit.
  • Bomb destroys US Humvee, wounds American troops in ash-Sharuqat.
  • Puppet police official’s car bombed in al-Mawsil Monday.
  • Oil refinery in Bayji engulfed in huge fire Monday afternoon.

Al-Anbar Province.

Four collaborator “Awakening” police killed in bomb attack in al-Baghdadi.

In a dispatch posted at 8:22pm Baghdad time Monday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that a bomb exploded by a checkpoint manned by collaborationist “Awakening” police in the city of al-Baghdadi, 200km west of Baghdad.

Yaqen reported a source in the puppet police as saying that four collaborator “Awakening” policemen were killed and three more of them wounded in the attack.


Collaborator “Awakening” police captured, taken away from checkpoint in northern Baghdad Monday evening.

In a dispatch posted at 9:10pm Baghdad time Monday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that armed men captured eight or ten collaborator members of the “Awakening” police in northeastern Baghdad on Monday evening.

Yaqen reported a source in the puppet police as saying that armed men in five unmarked cars abducted the collaborators on Monday evening from the checkpoint in the north Baghdad district of ash-Sha’b.

Sectarian murder spree continues: seven bodies dumped around Baghdad on Monday.

In a dispatch posted at 7:55pm Baghdad time Monday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that the Iraqi puppet police recovered the bodies of seven more victims of sectarian murder that had been dumped in various parts of Baghdad in the previous 24 hours.

Yaqen reported a puppet police source as saying that four of the bodies were found in Baghdad’s al-Karakh side and three in ar-Rusafah.

US troops ransack kindergarten in Madinat as-Sadr in Baghdad Monday.

In a dispatch posted at 5:17pm Makkah time Monday afternoon, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that US troops raided and ransacked a kindergarten in the Madinat as-Sadr section of Baghdad on Monday.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported the puppet Ministry of Education as announcing that the rampaging Americans arrested three of the guards at the Rawdat al-Kanari kindergarten during their raid. The US occupation forces offered no explanation for their actions.

The puppet Ministry announced that the Americans broke down doors and windows and the secondary roof in the kindergarten and smashed children’s toys. The Ministry called for a halt in such arbitrary US actions, noting that the Americans never found anything that would suggest that the kindergarten had any ties with “terrorist activity.”

US troops raid home of religious shaykh in Baghdad, steal money, phones, smash furniture.

In a dispatch posted at 5:34pm Baghdad time Monday afternoon, the Association of Muslim Scholars of Iraq (AMSI) reported that US troops raided the home of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ilah ‘Abd al-Mun’im al-Hiti, the Imam of the Muhammad Rasul Allah Mosque in the al-Jihad neighborhood of Baghdad.

The AMSI reported eyewitnesses as saying that the Americans arrested three of al-Hiti’s sons and stole money intended for orphans and families of modest means in the area. The US troops also stole mobile phones and computers in the Shaykh’s house in addition to breaking all the doors and furniture in the home.

Then, after coming out of the Shaykh’s house, the Americans raided neighboring houses where they arrested seven more people after breaking down doors and smashing windows and furniture there as well.

Two bomb attacks in southern Baghdad kill three.

In a dispatch posted on its Arabic website at 7:26pm Monday night Beijing time (2:26pm Baghdad time), the Xinhua News Agency reported that three people had been killed and 19 more of them wounded in two separate bomb attacks in Baghdad.

Xinhua reported a source in the puppet police as saying that one bomb exploded in a small food cart on as-Sina’iyah Street in southern Baghdad at noon on Monday. The blast killed three people and wounded 16 more of them in varying degrees of severity. Several nearby buildings were also damaged in that attack.

The source added that a second bomb went off by a puppet police patrol on al-Husayn Square in southern Baghdad, wounding two policemen and one civilian. All were taken away in a patrol car to obtain treatment.

Commander of collaborator “Awakening” police in al-A’zamiyah district of Baghdad killed with nine others in car bomb attack Monday.

In a dispatch posted on its Arabic website at 7:21pm Monday night Beijing time (2:21pm Baghdad time), the Xinhua News Agency reported that a man wearing an explosive belt walked to the entrance to the headquarters of the collaborator “Awakening” police in the Baghdad district of al-A’zamiyah and blew himself up Monday morning. Then, after a crowd gathered, a man driving an explosives-packed car followed up by blasting into the area.

In a dispatch posted at 12:45pm Baghdad time Monday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that the first bomber struck the headquarters of the Sunni Waqf (pious endowment) offices (where the “Awakening” collaborator police have their offices) at 11 am local time Monday morning. The Waqf Council office is located in the Sab’ Abkar area of al-A’zamiyah.

In a dispatch posted at 7:38pm Beijing time, the Xinhua News Agency reported that the double bombing had killed 14 people and wounded 26 more.

A source told Xinhua that Colonel Riyad as-Samarra’i, the commander of the al-A’zamiyah “Awakening” collaborator police, was killed in the attack along with his son and five of his bodyguards. Also killed was the security official working for the Sunni Waqf Council.

Car bomber kills two collaborator “Awakening” policemen in checkpoint attack in northern Baghdad.

In a dispatch posted on its Arabic website at 5:42pm Monday afternoon Beijing time (12:42pm Baghdad time), the Xinhua News Agency reported that an attacker in an explosives-packed car blew up by a checkpoint manned by tribal collaborator “Awakening” police in northern Baghdad.

Xinhua reported a source in the puppet police as saying that the attack in the northern Baghdad district of al-Ibkar, killed two “Awakening” collaborators and wounded four more of them. Ambulances evacuated the wounded to a hospital.

US troops ransack Iraqi Health Department office in northern Baghdad Monday morning.

In a dispatch posted at 11:52am Baghdad time Monday morning, the Yaqen News Agency reported that US troops raided the northern Baghdad Health Department offices on Monday morning.

Yaqen reported a source in the al-Karakh Health Department as saying that the American troops smashed down the doors and broke out the windows when they raided the al-Karakh Health Department office on ‘Adan Square. They also ransacked property in the headquarters during the raid. The official offered no further details about the American attack.

US admits death of American soldier in southern Baghdad Sunday night.

In a dispatch posted on its Arabic website at 4:07pm Monday afternoon Beijing time, the Xinhua News Agency reported that the US military had admitted the death of one more of its soldiers in Iraq.

Xinhua reported a US announcement as saying that a bomb exploded near a US patrol to the south of Baghdad, killing one American soldier on Sunday night. In keeping with the US policy of concealing facts regarding America losses in Iraq, the US statement provided no further details on the attack.

Salah ad-Din Province.

Oil refinery in Bayji engulfed in huge fire Monday afternoon.

In a dispatch posted at 8:12pm Baghdad time Monday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that one person was killed and 15 more injured when a massive fire broke out at the Bayji oil refinery, 200km north of Baghdad, on Monday afternoon.

Yaqen reported a source in the puppet police command as saying that immediate appeals for assistance went out from the puppet “Civil Defense” forces responsible for fighting fires at the refinery. The fire erupted in the section of the refinery where benzene and liquid gas are processed.

The source said that the blaze was so intense, however, and spread so quickly, that the fire trucks arriving on the scene were unable to approach the fire. Shortly before the time of reporting, however, firefighters had begun to battle the blaze.


Bomb destroys US Humvee, wounds American troops in ash-Sharuqat.

In a dispatch posted at 10:15am Baghdad time Monday morning, the Yaqen News Agency reported that a bomb exploded by a US patrol near the city of ash-Sharuqat, 250km north of Baghdad.

Yaqen reported eyewitnesses as saying that the blast destroyed an American Humvee and wounded several US soldiers. The sources told Yaqen that US ambulances raced to the scene to evacuate the injured men.


Two US troops reported killed by Iraqi sharpshooter in Tikrit.

In a dispatch posted at 10am Baghdad time Monday morning, the Yaqen News Agency reported that two US troops were shot and killed by a sharpshooter in the az-Zuhur neighborhood of central Tikrit, 180km north of Baghdad.

Yaqen reported eyewitnesses as saying that the two Americans were taking part in a foot patrol on a public street when the sharpshooter opened fire. After the attack, the US troops surrounded the area and began searches throughout the area.

Diyala Province.


Bomber in explosive belt kills puppet police, “Awakening” collaborators in Ba’qubah.

In a dispatch posted at 11:38am Baghdad time Monday morning, the Yaqen News Agency reported that a person wearing an explosive belt blew himself up amidst a force of puppet policemen and collaborator “Awakening” police in Ba’qubah, 65km northeast of Baghdad.

Yaqen reported a source in the puppet police who asked not to be identified as saying that several puppet policemen and “Awakening” collaborators were killed or wounded in the blast, but that the exact number was not yet known.

Ninwa Province.

Puppet police official’s car bombed in al-Mawsil Monday.

In a dispatch posted at 1:35pm Baghdad time Monday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that a bomb exploded under the car of Colonel Mu’ayyad Muhammad of the puppet police directorate in al-Mawsil, 420km northwest of Baghdad on Monday.

Yaqen reported Brigadier General ‘Abd al-Karim, director of the puppet police operations center in Ninwa Province, as saying that the bomb went off under Muhammad’s car in the Bab Lakash area of the city, burning the car completely and inflictin material damage to nearby houses.



-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

January 8-10, 2008
Malcom Lagauche

CIA-produced comic books dropped on Grenada after invasion.
Same propaganda was used against Iraq.

“Where the hell is Grenada?” many Americans asked in October 1983 when they read or heard that the United States had invaded that Caribbean military powerhouse. When most tried to find out where the country is, or why the U.S. invaded, they were left without answers. For a few days, we saw the country’s name in the newspapers, then it quickly departed.The one consistent, yet vague, answer given to the American public was that the invasion was necessary to stop the Reds (Moscow, not Cincinnati) from encroaching on U.S. territory. That was good enough for the American public. No more questions were asked.Despite the small size of Grenada and the limited discussion about the invasion, the implications are staggering. They were the beginning of a U.S. foreign policy of aggression that is strongly in place today.The U.S. government conducted experiments in deception and they worked. For instance, under the excuse of “national security,” the press was not allowed to cover the events. The media grumbled, but the incident was soon forgotten. This test was to see if there would be outrage from the media, but none came.The use of overwhelming force came into play. Much more military might was thrust on Grenada than was necessary to do the job. This set the stage for future invasions by using old stocks of weapons so manufacturers of military equipment could fill their order books with the next generation of armaments, greatly enhancing the military-industrial complex and its foothold on the American economy.Government lies abounded. The public was told that the island of Grenada was about to be used by Soviet communists to invade other countries in the Western Hemisphere, and, eventually, the U.S. itself. For an excuse, the U.S. government pointed to Cuban troops on the island and the construction of an airport. In reality, there were about 50 Cuban engineering advisers in Grenada who were helping the country build an airport for tourists.

Another justification for the invasion was the safety of a few hundred American students who were attending university in Grenada. This flimsy notion was dispelled when the first planeload of students returned to the U.S. The press was well-represented at the airport and, when the first person left the plane, he was quickly asked, “Did you think your life was in danger?” The reporter inferred that the government of Grenada was about to harm its foreign guests. A befuddled student answered, “The only time I felt my life was in danger was when the American bombs started dropping.” That interview was never again shown.

The similarities of the invasions of Grenada and Iraq are alarming. One was a dress rehearsal for the other. Jonathan Steele covered the Grenada invasion once the press was allowed to enter the country after being shut out for five days. The October 11, 2003 edition of the British newspaper The Guardian ran an article by Steele in which he reminisced about his Grenada experience and he put it into context with post-2003 invasion Iraq. According to Steele:

Reporters who covered Grenada in that distant autumn of 1983 saw the same abuse of human rights, the same postwar incompetence, and same primitive failure to understand a foreign culture which the U.S. “war on terror” was later to produce.

None of us was allowed into Point Salines, the airport which the U.S. took over as its occupation headquarters. But looking across rows of barbed wire we caught glimpses of detainees being heralded into wooden crates … A single tiny window in each crate gave the luckless prisoners a view of armed guards in sandbagged watchtowers. It was the prototype of Guantanamo Bay’s Camp X-Ray.

The aspect of dehumanization by imperialistic soldiers never changes. In Fallujah, Iraq, before the city became famous for its resistance to the U.S. occupation, incidents occurred to set the stage for the now-famous defense of the city. A schoolhouse was trashed by U.S. troops. When Iraqis entered the school after its debasement, they saw racist and bigoted messages written on blackboards. The statements included, “We love pork,” and “Baghdad Taxi Company” (with a drawing of a camel). The door of the principal’s office was adorned with a drawing of a penis and a scrotum. When he went into the school after the raid, the headmaster cried.

Grenada was no different. After the invasion, the Cuban Embassy’s door was embellished with the enlightened statement, “Eat shit, Commie faggot.” The initials AA were left under the statement as a signature. This autograph stands for “All American” and it was commonly used in graffiti messages left by the 82nd Airborne Division. That is the same outfit that commemorated the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Grenada by killing three Iraqis near Fallujah while shooting up a farmhouse and calling in air-strikes to destroy the building.

Shortly after the Grenada invasion, a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) moderator asked an African journalist what he thought of the invasion. The reporter answered, “If killing an ant with a sledgehammer is honorable, so be it.” Those few words were more ominous than the originator could have dreamed. Since he uttered them, the United States has brutally attacked various other “Third World” countries in its quest for world domination — Libya, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia and Afghanistan. In addition, it has come close to using its military might against the nations of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Haiti, Syria and Sudan.

Iraq, a country of about 20 million people at the time, fell into the American crosshairs and was destroyed in 1991. The problem with that progressive Arab country was that it did not adhere to the wishes of the United States. It paid a high price in 1991 and a still-higher price in 2003. Despite the twice-over destruction of Iraq, many of its citizens remained proud and steadfast. Prior to the 2003 invasion, U.S. administration officials stated that the Iraqi people would welcome American troops with flowers and candy. The Iraqis did not hear George Bush II’s prediction and they greeted the soldiers with bullets and RPGs instead.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes – Faked Attacks

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===


Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes – Faked Attacks

Published: Tuesday January 8, 2008

North Vietnamese made hoax calls to get the US military to bomb its own units during the Vietnam War, according to declassified information that also confirmed US officials faked an incident to escalate the war.The report was released by the National Security Agency, responsible for much of the United States’ codebreaking and eavesdropping work, in response to a “mandatory declassification” request, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said Monday.

From the first intercepted cable — a 1945 message from Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh to his Russian counterpart Joseph Stalin — to the final evacuation of US spies from Saigon, the 500-page report retold Vietnam War history from the perspective of “signals intelligence,” the group said in a statement.

During the war, North Vietnamese intelligence units sometimes succeeded in penetrating US communications systems, and they could monitor American message traffic from within, according to the report “Spartans in Darkness.”

On several occasions “the communists were able, by communicating on Allied radio nets, to call in Allied artillery or air strikes on American units,” it said.

“That’s something I have never heard before,” Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS project on government secrecy, told AFP.

But he said that probably the “most historically significant feature” of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson’s sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.

The author of the report “demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was ‘unimpeachable,’ but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that ‘no attack happened that night,'” FAS said in a statement.

“What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It’s a dramatic reversal of the historical record,” Aftergood said.

“There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study,” he said.

The full story in


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

How Many Kids Will The US Kill In 2008?

Posted by musliminsuffer on January 9, 2008

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

How Many Kids Will The US Kill In 2008?

Those who KNOWINGLY deny, ignore, excuse, minimize, obfuscate, support, advocate or are otherwise complicit in the mass murder of CHILDREN have crossed the line separating decent humanity from proto-Nazi barbarism, from the unthinkable but real, barbaric actuality of Bush America.

By Dr Gideon Polya

08/01/08 “ICH” — — I seem to have been demonstrating against American racism, imperialism, wars and mass murder all my adult life from the Vietnam era of the 1960s and 1970s onwards. Back in the 1960s decent people chanted “Hay, hay LBJ, how many kids will you kill today?” (LBJ being US President Lyndon Baines Johnson who presided over the Indochina War – 13 million excess deaths in total – from the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) in 1963 to the accession of President Richard Nixon in 1969.

These days we have been chanting “Bush, Blair, CIA, how many kids did you kill today?” or the more general “Hay, hay USA, how many kids did you kill today?” This article by a senior biological scientist attempts to answer this question QUANTITATIVELY using the best available data from UNICEF (see: ) and the UN Population Division (see: ).

We can get an UPPER LIMIT estimate from determining the number of children who die avoidably on Spaceship Earth with George Bush in charge of the flight deck. I have published a huge book recently called “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”. (G.M. Polya, Melbourne; copies in some major libraries; see: and ). Careful research over several years and involving every country in the world ultimately obtained the estimate that 16 million people die avoidably each year (2003 data) of whom 9.6 million are under-5 year old infants.

We can accordingly estimate that Bush US is COMPLICIT in about 9.6 million avoidable infant deaths on Spaceship Earth each year (26,000 daily). However complicity is not the same as actual, actionable RESPONSIBILITY.

However while Bush America cannot be held responsible for every country in the world, under International Law it is certainly responsible for all countries actually violently occupied by the US (Occupied Iraq, Occupied Afghanistan, Occupied Diego Garcia) or by its war criminal surrogates Ethiopia and Racist Zionist-run Apartheid Israel (Occupied Haiti, Occupied Palestine, Occupied Somalia).

This culpability is clearly set out in Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (see: ), QUOTE:

Article 55

To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.

The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.

Article 56

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

If new hospitals are set up in occupied territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in Article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21.

In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory. END QUOTE.

Using data from UNICEF it can be estimated that 608,000 under-5 year old infants die ANNUALLY in the US- or US surrogate-occupied Occupied Territories listed above, 90% avoidably – i.e. 550,000 – and due to Occupier war crimes in violation of the Geneva Convention.

A quick inspection of the WHO (World Health Organization) website (see: ) reveals that total annual medical expenditure in US dollars permitted by the war criminal Occupiers is only $19 (Occupied Afghanistan), $82 (Occupied Haiti), $135 (Occupied Iraq), ? (Occupied Somalia) and ? (Occupied Palestinian Territory) as compared to the following hugely greater values for the racist, war-criminal, mass pedocidal US Alliance Occupier Countries: $3,123 (Australia), $3,173 (Canada), $3,040 (France), $3,171 (Germany), $2,560 (the UK) and $6.096 (the US).

Accordingly Bush, Dr Rice (aka Dr Death), Bush America and indeed ALL Bush-supporting Americans are responsible for the 550,000 avoidable under-5 infant deaths EACH YEAR in the above Occupied countries. For detailed data and analysis see “US Occupation & Terror & Occupation. War crimes & huge infant deaths”: , from which one obtains the following summary data:

Year 2005 under-5 infant deaths” / “year 2005 population” is 370,000 / 29.9 million (Occupied Afghanistan); 122,000 / 28.8 million (Occupied Iraq); 82,000 / 8.2 million (Occupied Somalia); 31,000 / 8.5 million (Occupied Haiti); and 3,000 / 3.7 million (Occupied Palestinian Territory) – as compared to 1,500 / 20.2 million (Occupi-er Australia) and 800 / 6.4 million (Occupi-er Israel).

Year 2005 annual under-5 infant death rate” (i.e. as a percentage: deaths for every 100 under-5 year old infants in 2005 in a particular country) was 6.7% (Occupied Afghanistan); 2.8% (Occupied Iraq); 5.5% (Occupied Somalia); 2.7% (Occupied Haiti); and 0.47% (Occupied Palestinian Territory) – as compared to 0.12% (Occupi-er Australia) and 0.12% (Occupi-er Israel).

Total excess deaths for impoverished developing countries is about 1.4 times the total under-5 infant deaths (see “Layperson’s Guide to Counting Iraq deaths”: (for detailed analysis see my book “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (copies in major libraries): and ). Accordingly annual excess deaths in the above Occupied Countries = 608,000 x 1.4 = 850,000.

THE ANSWERS to the questions posed above are that Bush America will be responsible for (a) 850,000 excess deaths in US- or US surrogate-occupied Territories in 2008 (of whom well over 50% will be kids) and (b) 550,000 avoidable under-5 infant deaths in these Occupied Territories in 2008 or 550,000/365 = 1,500 avoidable under-5 year old infant deaths DAILY.

Terrorism whether state terrorism or non-state terrorism is evil and repugnant.

Muslim-origin non-state terrorists have murdered 7,000 Western civilians in the last 40 (FORTY) years (including Israelis and assuming no US or Israeli complicity in 9/11 – ignoring the fact that in November 2007 former President and intelligence-intimate Francesco Cossiga of Italy announced unequivocally that 9/11 was due to the US CIA and Israeli Mossad) (see: ).

However the 21st century Bush Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been associated (SO FAR) with post-invasion excess deaths of 1.5-2 million and 3-6 million, respectively; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths of 0.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively; and refugees totalling 4.5 million and 4 million, respectively (see: and ).

From these UN agency- and medical literature-derived figures Bush US is clearly the world’s #1 terrorist state and the current world’s #1 for mass murder and mass pedocide (mass murder of children).

What sort of human beings can be complicit in such mass murder? What sort of Americans are complicit in this mass murder? What sort of American WOMEN are complicit in this horrendous mass murder of BORN INFANTS? Well, George W. Bush’s Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice (aka Wicked Witch of the West, Dr Death), Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Hilary Clinton for starters.

Of course ugly, racist Americans such as the Racist Religious Right Republican (R4) Bush-ites might argue that Muslim, Arab, Asian, South Asian, African, or non-European infants “don’t count” (that, of course, having been continuous, sustained American policy since the time of the racist, genocidal, God-fearing first European settlers of America 500 years ago) but what about the 20,000 AMERICAN INFANTS who die avoidably EACH YEAR because of Bush policies (see “How Bush killed 100,000 American infants”: ).

Bush America is undoubtedly well ahead of the rest as the world’s #1 climate criminal state, and the #1 for terrorism, and mass pedocide. US state terrorism (USST), US climate criminality, and US nuclear terrorism are the #1 threats facing the world today.

Those who KNOWINGLY deny, ignore, excuse, minimize, obfuscate, support, advocate or are otherwise complicit in the mass murder of CHILDREN have crossed the line separating decent humanity from proto-Nazi barbarism, from the unthinkable but real, barbaric actuality of Bush America.

Small wonder therefore that outstanding Jewish American investor, philanthropist, author, activist, Holocaust hero and Holocaust survivor George Soros has demanded the “de-Nazification” of Bush America (see: “George Soros: Bush America needs de-Nazification”: ).

What can decent people do to counter this horrendous Bush American barbarism in 2008? Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. Decent folk must (a) inform others and (b) act ethically by applying Sanctions and Boycotts in relation to all their avoidable dealings with individuals, corporations and countries complicit in this continuing mass pedocide, this continuing, remorseless Bush-ite mass murder of innocent children.


-muslim voice-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »