| Shobuz's profile๑۩۞۩๑ °¨™¤¦(¯`•.-Shobuz ...PhotosBlogNetwork |  Tools  Help |
|
|
Business Structures of ItalyMain business structures
There are two types of companies that can be set up: joint-stock company and partnership. Joint-stock companies have legal status and are liable for the commitments taken over exclusively with their own assets.
The following are joint-stock companies: - società per azioni (S.p.a.) - società a responsabilità limitata (S.r.l.) - società in accomandita per azioni (S.a.p.a.) Società di persone Società per azioni (S.p.a.)
Subsidiaries
Partnership and joint venture Mergers
Acquisitions
This is an "inconspicuous" way to enter a market. It is adopted either for commercial purposes or to gain local market knowledge. Administration is carried out by staff that cannot make decisions regarding commercial or financial operations.
Common rules for foreign companies in Italy: requirements that must be met The labour market in Italy
Correcting some mistaken notions about the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab in some non-Arabic sourcesThe movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab
The movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (1115-1206 AH/ 1730-1793 CE) in the Arabian Peninsula was destined to abide and be well-accepted. It was the starting-point of a rightly-guided government which took it upon itself to apply the Islamic sharee’ah in totality and to seek the guidance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah in all its dealings, so Allaah granted it support and victory. From its first founding two centuries ago this government continued to remain strong in the face of opposing trends at both the sectarian and political levels. The call of the Shaykh went beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula and bore fruit in a number of Muslim lands, at the hands of rightly-guided callers and sincere shaykhs who were guided by its light. The movement was blessed, like a good tree whose roods are firm and whose branches reach the sky. Like any other reform movement, the shaykh’s movement was not spared attacks made against the personality, ‘aqeedah (beliefs) and books of the founder of this movement, starting with the label of “Wahhabism” – which soon became known far and wide and became a label by which the movement was known, even though it was not acceptable to its founder and followers – and ending with attacks against the state itself, with criticism which indicates hatred and the wish for evil on the part of the critics. The number of books produced by the lovers of bid’ah and myths increased, and were confronted by scholars in all Muslim lands who refuted every lie with definitive proof and clear evidence so that the doubts of the stubborn became like dust in the air (were reduced to naught). Because most of these books – for or against the movement – were written in Arabic, there is no need to quote them here. The author of this article is interested in looking at what has been written in English or Urdu, in order to quote relevant material whilst refuting all the doubts that are mentioned therein, in the light of what has been written by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab himself or by shaykhs in the Kingdom [Saudi Arabia] and people of virtue and knowledge in other Muslim lands who wrote in his defence. It is not possible in this short article to discuss the topic from all aspects. I hope that readers will accept my apologies if they find any unintentional mistakes in this effort, and that they will pray for me to be granted strength and steadfastness if they gain any benefits from reading it. And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path. Firstly: what was written in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, which is counted as one of the oldest and most comprehensive encyclopaedias of religion and sects in the English language, under the heading of “Wahhabism”: that their differences with Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah (the Sunnis) are limited to ten things. The author of this article was the famous Orientals Margoliouth, who said: 1- They affirm that Allaah has physical attributes, such as His Face, two Hands, etc. 2- Reason plays no role in religious matters, which must be resolved in the light of the ahaadeeth. 3- They do not accept ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus). 4- They reject qiyaas (analogy). 5- They believe that the opinions of the madhhabs are not evidence, and that those who follow them are not Muslims. 6- They think that everyone who does not join their group is a kaafir. 7- They think that it is not permissible to seek the intercession of the Prophet or of a wali (“saint”). 8- Visiting tombs and shrines is haraam in their view. 9- Swearing by anything other than Allaah is haraam. 10-Making vows to anything other than Allaah and offering sacrifices to the awliyaa’ (“saints”) at their tombs is haraam. He was not sure about attributing the fifth point to them, because the Wahhabis are followers of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the four Imaams. At the end of his article he mentions that al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Irfaan al-Shaheed (d. 1831 CE) brought the idea of Wahhabism back [to India] when he went to Hajj in 1824 CE and brought it from Makkah al-Mukarramah. (James Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by Hastings, Edinburgh, 12:660-661) Margoliouth, the author of this article, is held in high esteem by the orientalists. It is very strange indeed that he lists the views of the opponents of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (may Allaah have mercy on him) and of the Wahhabis in general, but he does not find any of them to be false apart from the fifth point! Let us look at these doubts one by one and comment briefly on each of them. 1 – The belief of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) concerning the Attributes of Allaah is like the belief of the salaf in all respects. They affirmed that Allaah had all the attributes with which He described Himself, whether they were attributes which referred to His Essence, such as His Face, Hand or Eye, or attributes which referred to His actions, such as His pleasure, anger, coming down [to the first heaven] or rising above [the Throne], without asking how, denying any attributes or likening them to human attributes. Their evidence with regard to this matter was the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like Him, and He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Seer” [al-Shoora 42:11] Their view concerning the attributes of Allaah is like their view concerning the Essence of Allaah, which does not resemble the essence of His created beings. 2 – Their notion that the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab lend no weight to reason is not correct. They say that reason should operate in the light of the Revelation, just as the eye needs light to work; for the eye cannot do its job unless there is also light from outside, whether it is the light of the sun, moon or stars, or artificial light. Similarly, reason needs and depends upon the light of Divine Revelation; if Revelation is not there, then it becomes confused in the darkness. For this reason, the mind of the thinker is different from the mind of the philosopher, and the mind of the historian is different from the mind of the mathematician. 3 – Attributing rejection of ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) to them is not correct either. Imaam Ahmad considered the ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah to be true ijmaa’, because their time is known from beginning to end; they witnessed the Revelation and learned the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) directly from him. As Imaam Muhammad Abu Zahrah mentioned, ijmaa’ is of two types: consensus on the basic obligatory duties, which is accepted by all, and consensus on other rulings, such as their consensus that apostates should be fought, etc. In the second case, there are different reports narrated from Ahmad, hence some of the scholars narrated that he said, “Whoever claims that there is consensus is a liar.” Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The one who claims that there is consensus is lying, and it is not right to give ijmaa’ priority over proven hadeeth. ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I heard my father say: “Whoever claims that there is consensus is a liar. The people may have differed. How does he know that there was no one who expressed an opposing view? Let him say, we do not know of any opposing view.” From this we may conclude that Imaam Ahmad did not deny the principle of ijmaa’, but he denied the certainty of ijmaa’ taking place after the time of the Sahaabah. (Taareekh al-Madhaahib al-Islamiyyah by Muhammad Abu Zahrah, p. 532) 4 – His comment that they reject qiyaas (analogy) is also not correct. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) held the same view as the Hanbalis with regard to qiyaas. Abu Zahrah said: “It was narrated that Ahmad said that we cannot do without qiyaas, and that the Sahaabah used it. Because Ahmad had stated the principle of accepting qiyaas, the Hanbalis paid a great deal of attention to it and used it a great deal whenever they came across issues concerning which there was no report narrated of any ruling from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his Companions.” (Taareekh al-Madhaahib al-Islamiyyah by Muhammad Abu Zahrah, p. 532) 5 – With regard to his notion that the opinions of the madhhabs are not evidence and that those who follow them are not Muslims … 6 – … and his view that those who do not join them (the Wahhabis) are kaafirs. This is also an obvious lie. Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said, in a letter that he wrote when he joined al-Ameer Sa’ood ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, when he took over Makkah on Saturday 8 Muharram 1218 AH: “Our madhhab with regard to the basic principles of religion is the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. Our way is the way of the salaf, and with regard to minor issues our madhhab is that of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. We do not denounce those who follow any of the four imaams in exclusion to others, because the madhhabs of the others have not been codified.” Then he said: “Lies are told about us to conceal the truth and confuse the people, so that they will think that we want to undermine the status of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and (that we say) that he has no power of intercession and that it is not recommended to visit him (his grave), and that we do not lend any weight to the views of the scholars, and that we denounce all people as kaafirs in, and that we forbid sending blessings on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that we do not respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s houshold). Our response to all of that is: Glory be to You, this is a grave lie! Whoever attributes anything of this sort to us is telling lies and uttering fabrications against us.” (‘Ulamaa’ al-Najd Khilaal Sittat Quroon by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Saalih al-Bassaam, 1/51) 7 – His comment that they believe it is not permitted to seek the intercession of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or of a wali (“saint”) shows that he did not know the difference between the kind of intercession which the Shaykh rejected, which contains elements of shirk, and that which he acknowledged, which is the kind of intercession which will only happen with permission from Allaah on the Day of Resurrection, where no intercession will be accepted except intercession made for those with whom He is pleased. (Kitaab al-Tawheed by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, Baab al-Shafaa’ah). If what the critic meant was tawassul (seeking to draw closer to Allaah) by means of the Prophets and awliyaa’, the fact is that many people are unaware of the view of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on this matter, and they attribute to him and to Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab things that they did not say. Imaam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “There was narrated from Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Mansik al-Marwadhi a report which indicated tawassul by means of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in his du’aa’, but other scholars forbade that. If what is meant is tawassul (drawing close to Allaah) by believing in him, loving him, being loyal to him and obeying him, then there is no dispute between the two sides on this point. But if what is meant is tawassul by means of the person of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then there is a dispute here, and what they dispute about should be referred to Allaah and His Messenger.” (Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, 1/264) 8 – With regard to visiting tombs and shrines, we will discuss this matter below when we comment on the writings of Goldziher. 9 – With regard to their saying that swearing by anything other than Allaah is haraam, the Shaykh also believes that, as stated in the saheeh hadeeth narrated by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, according to which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever swears by anything other than Allaah has committed an act of kufr or shirk.” (Narrated and classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi; classed as saheeh by al-Haakim). Ibn Mas’ood said: “Swearing falsely by Allaah is more liked by me than swearing sincerely by anything other than Allaah.” (Kitaab al-Tawheed, Baab Qawl Allaah ta’aal ‘Fa laa taj’alu Lillaahi andaadan wa antum ta’lamoon’) 10 – They attribute to the Shaykh the view that it is haraam to make vows to anyone other than Allaah or to offer sacrifices to the awliyaa’ (“saints) at their tombs. Undoubtedly this view is the religion of Allaah which is followed by every Muslim who believes in Allaah and His Messenger. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) included in his great book Kitaab al-Tawheed a chapter entitled Laa yudhbah Lillaahi fi makaan yudhbaah li ghayr Allaah (Sacrifices should not be offered to Allaah in places where sacrifices are offered to anyone other than Allaah). The following chapter is entitled, Min al-Shirk al-nadhr li ghayr Allaah (It is shirk to make vows to anyone other than Allaah). In these two chapters he quotes the evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah to prove that these two actions are invalid. This book was published in two volumes, in German, in 1889/1890 CE, then it was translated into Arabic in 1967 CE. The author wrote an entire chapter, 96 pages long, entitled “Veneration of the ‘saints’ in Islam”, in which he discussed in detail the extremes to which the Muslims had gone in attributing miracles to the ‘saints’, both living and dead. He also quoted examples, from Islamic books and the actions of the masses, of the veneration of tombs and shrines, intending to show that there was no difference between Muslims and Christians in the matter of venerating saints. He also quoted ayaat and ahaadeeth which denounced and opposed this action. The author said: after this, there is no need to provide further proof that there is no room in the true Islamic religion for venerating ‘saints’, because this is a matter which was innovated and introduced later on. The Qur’aan denounces the veneration of saints and glorifying them to the extent of believing in rabbis and monks as lords besides Allaah. Then he quotes the comment of Carl Heis about the idea of awliyaa’ being an attempt to fulfil the need for shirk within the religion of Tawheed, in order to fill the huge gap between the people and their God. (Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p. 259) After giving dozens of examples of how the masses venerated the saints and visited their tombs and shrines in order to fulfil their needs, the author lists examples of people who denounced any manifestation of shirk in the Muslims’ actions. Then he mentions the strict stance which Ibn Taymiyah took concerning the matter of tawassul and journeying to visit any mosques apart from the three mosques [in Makkah, Madeenah and al-Quds]. Then he said: “All of this indicates that there were precedents to the Wahhabis with regard to this issue, and that the open demonstration of their belief was in fact an echo of the beliefs of Muslims in the past. In this regard it may be useful – in order to write the cultural and religious history of Islam – to compile a list of all phenomena and events which had come down from the times of Jaahiliyyah or had come in from the outside prior to the emergence of Wahhabism, which is considered to be a Tawheedi reaction against the manifestations of idolatry, and connect them to the societies in which they emerged.” Then he mentioned an incident which occurred in 1711 CE, before the emergence of Wahhabism, in the Mosque of al-Mu’ayyad in Cairo, where a young man stood up one night in Ramadaan and fiercely denounced those who venerated the saints and called for the destruction of the shrines which were build over the graves of the awliyaa’ and for an end to the Mevlevi and Bakhsiyyah traditions. He also called upon the dervishes to learn instead of dancing. This young man made this call for a number of nights, then he disappeared. The author of this report, the poet Hasan al-Hijaazi (d. 1131 AH) said: “The preacher fled, or it was said that he was killed.” (Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p. 334-335) The point is that this German orientalist has saved us the job of refuring the accusations made against the Wahhabis that they destroyed the domes on the shrines and stopped people from visiting graves to call upon the dead for help. Islam as brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) does not allow either of these things. Al-Da’wah magazine, issue #1754, pp. 60-61 Collected By---
TRUTHS BETWEEN JEWS, CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS
''''' UN DIO ''''LE VERITÀ TRA GLI EBREI, CRISTIANI E MUSULMANI'''Quest'articolo è tradotto dal software può essere ci è cosí dell'errore, me perdona per favore per i problemi imprevisti.
Shobuz ______________________________________________________ LE VERITÀ TRA GLI EBREI, CRISTIANI E MUSULMANI '''We il culto e serve il Dio che ha creato e sostiene l'universo, l'Un Dio di Abraham, Moses, Jesus e Muhammad. Dietro le nostre differenze mente l'unità dell'Un. '''''''' DARE IL BENVENUTO E LE VERITÀ SGRADITE TRA GLI EBREI, CRISTIANI E MUSULMANI: UNA DICHIARAZIONE DI PIATTAFORMA DA UN GRUPPO DI DIALOGO DI EBREI, CRISTIANI E MUSULMANI Questa dichiarazione di formative sorge da un gruppo teologico di Ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani, la maggior parte di che incontra per dodici anni. Sentiamo che è ora di fare una dichiarazione pubblica per esprimere i nostri interessi divisi. Siamo convinti del bisogno a accentuare entramba la credenza divisa in Dio e la morale divisa ed i valori spirituali delle nostre tre fedi. Inoltre, desideriamo disegnare l'attenzione al bisogno urgente di capire interra-religioso e la cooperazione per promuovere un più mondo giusto, pacifico ed ecologicamente sostenibile. Dato le origini di questa dichiarazione di piattaforma nel dialogo tra le persone da tre tradizioni, è simultaneamente pubblicato in tre diari è frequentato le tre tradizioni. Speriamo che molti lettori risponderanno al suo contenuto. Verità sgradite Mentre rigettando la nozione estesa quella religione è sempre e necessariamente il divisive, crediamo che gli Ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani dovrebbero riconoscere alcune verità sgradite: 1. Ai vari tempi nelle relazioni di storia tra le tre comunità è stato rovinato dalla discriminazione e dalla violenza, ed entro ogni religione di comunità è stato anche una fonte di contesa settaria. 2. In Ebreo, il cristiano e le scritture Musulmane e le tradizioni un può trovare i passaggi che sono stato interpretati sostenere spesso i reclami di verità esclusivi ed un senso di superiorità. 3. Nella pratica, ogni fede è stata notevolmente lo stesso-concentrare e mancando nella stesso-critica, pretendendo per sé una posizione superiore ed un'autorità unica. L'umiltà notevolmente manca spesso, e nella sua arroganza di luogo e nel triumphalism è stato tutto troppo evidente. Il pericolo Ci è un pericolo reale adesso che queste verità sgradite, combinate con l'ingiustizia politica, gli abusi di diritti umani, la povertà, l'odio, la paura, l'ignoranza, la globalizzazione, la guerra come uno strumento di linea di condotta imperiale, ed il fallimento di rispettare i principi internazionali legali o etici, aggravarà i conflitti, l'intolleranza, ed anche l'anarchia intorno il mondo. Il rimedio Gli ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani non devono consentire che la loro religione essere abusata in questa maniera dall'ideologues di exclusivist. Dobbiamo fare una posizione insieme per la pace, capire, la compassione e la giustizia. Dobbiamo dare il benvenuto la diversità religiosa e ciò concediamo no separa la religione può pretendere un monopolio di Verità. Ciascuno dobbiamo ha messo la propria casa per, riconoscendo che abbiamo in comune, accettando che le nostre scritture e le storie sono collegate, e riconoscere la nostra interdipendenza. Ogni fede ha il suo contributo per fare entramba il separatamente ed insieme: veramente, a quest'era nella storia abbiamo bisogno di l'un l'altro lontano più di nel passato, ed il futuro delle nostre richieste di mondo che insegniamo alle nostre comunità il valore ed i benefici di dialogo, la cooperazione e l'interdipendenza. Verità benvenute Gli ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani possono essere ispirati per cambiare la loro tendenza per il migliore considerando il seguito le verità benvenute: 1. Adoriamo e serviamo il Dio che abbiamo creato e sostiene l'universo, l'Un Dio di Abraham, Moses, Jesus e Muhammad. Dietro le nostre differenze mente l'unità dell'Un. 2. Dividiamo lo stesso codice generale di etica, che condanna l'assassinio, il furto e l'adulterio, e le richieste che otteniamo i diritti di quelli che è stato negato i loro diritti, curarsi di quelli nel bisogno, i malati, il soffrire, la vedova e l'orfano, dare il benvenuto lo straniero, il reietto ed il perseguitato, ed offrire il riparo ed il rifugio al senzatetto ed il tolto. 3. Ciascuno eredita di noi una tradizione larga e ricca religiosa entro cui molte vedute diverse può coesistere. Che crediamo Ciò crediamo: 1. La diversità religiosa e culturale dovrebbe essere valutata e dovrebbe essere celebrata, nella conoscenza piena che ogni tradizione di fede è unica ed inestimabile. 2. Come gli esseri umano con le limitazioni umane, non saremo mai in grado di afferrare il significato pieno della Verità o comprende la natura di Dio. 3. Le nostre tradizioni rispettive religiose sono capaci di esplorare le implicazioni di conoscenze nuove ed i dilemmi presentati dalla scienza moderne e la tecnologia e che abbiamo un dovere per reinterpretare la nostra religione con questo scopo a mente. 4. Le nostre scritture religiose non devono essere usate in una maniera semplicistica; hanno bisogno dell'interpretazione attenta, portando in bada a entrambi il contesto storico e la loro pertinenza di presentare i bisogni. 5. Le nostre tradizioni religiose possono l'ornamento migliore nelle societá giuste, pluralistiche e democratiche, dove ci è la libertà di culto e dove i diritti di tutti gli individui sono rispettati. 6. Il lavoro di missionario che provoca l'antagonismo ed il resentment dovrebbero essere fortemente scoraggiati. 7. Dio è il vero Proprietario di tutto, che siamo finito, e che tutto il che abbiamo è un prestito o un regalo da Dio; abbiamo quindi un dovere per sorvegliare questo planet e protegge le sue risorse naturali e la sua varietà di forme di vita interdipendenti, per amore delle generazioni di futuro. 8. Il sanctity di tutta la vita è contaminato dalla guerra, il terrorismo, il genocidio, la tortura, lo stupro, gli assassini estragiudiziali, e la detenzione senza la prova. 9. La scrittura non dovrebbe essere usata per giustificare la violenza, l'oppressione, lo sfruttamento, l'aggressione militare, o i reclami di superiorità. 10. Che che lega ci a Dio ci lega anche a l'un l'altro come una famiglia sola umana. Che ha bisogno di essere fatto? 1. Ci è un bisogno disperato dell'educazione in ebraismo, cristianesimo ed Islam. Troppo sono ignorante degli insegnamenti della loro propria fede, e sa anche meno delle altre fedi. Le nostre scuole di giorno e le istituzioni religiose hanno un dovere per insegnare non soltanto l'aderenza alle proprie tradizioni ma anche la conoscenza di altre tradizioni, collocando l'enfasi speciale sugli aspetti etici e ciò che hanno in comune. 2. Attraverso i programmi scolastici ed i mezzi di comunicazione di massa, l'armonia sociale dovrebbe essere promossa ci fando più consapevole della civilizzazione di contributo fatta dalle altre religioni, le culture e le civilizzazioni. 3. Gli ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani dovrebbero lavorare insieme uguaglia come i partner. Uguagliare il rispetto e lo spazio teologico dovrebbe essere accordato a ogni fede. Un mondo giusto e pacifico può essere conseguito soltanto nella societa'. 4. Ebreo, il cristiano e gli studiosi Musulmani dovrebbero essere fatti più consapevole del loro dovere per dimostrare come i loro testi sacri e le tradizioni religiose sono pertinenti ai bisogni attuali. 5. Poiché è la volontà di Dio che dovremmo sforzarsi diventare, come migliore possiamo, i servitori del suo amore e la sua compassione, dovremmo cercare di risolvere le dispute per mezzo di il perdono, l'empatia e la riconciliazione, ed incoraggia gli altri a fare lo stesso. Dovremmo tutta il è in grado di rispondere a affermativamente la domanda posata dall'altro: 'la Fa sa ciò che causa me addolora?' 6. Dovremmo confutare le perversioni all'exclusivist di ebraismo, cristianesimo ed Islam che glorifica la guerra ed il comportamento aggressivo, e dovremmo condannare quelli che ha steso i falsi stereotipi dell'Altro. 7. Noi, come gli Ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani, hanno un dovere per sfidare l'abuso di potere e richiedere che il tackle di governi le radici di terrorismo, usando la diplomazia come una prima risorsa, col rispetto per la dignità umana, con i diritti umani ed il processo dovuto di legge. Abbiamo un dovere per difendere la destra all'asilo dove questo è ingiustamente trattenuto, e cercare di conformarsi ai principi etici ed umanitari entramba il alla casa ed all'estero. 8. Abbiamo un dovere alla verità e la riconciliazione che richieste di noi che riconosciamo siamo tutte le vittime di conti diversi ed irreconciliabili di corrente e gli avvenimenti passati pubblici, e ciò insieme può soltanto costruiamo delle narrazioni divise basate sulla testimonianza esatte e le registrazioni. Possiamo conseguire soltanto la nostra visione di un mondo riparato e trasformato dal pooling il migliore dei nostri insegnamenti rispettivi ed i nostri talenti nella societa'e lo sforzo diviso. La societa'soltanto piena ed efficace può finire il conflitto e porta la pace, con le opportunità di meditare insieme il prodigio di creazione ed il mistero di Dio. Firmatari Ebreo:Jewish: Rabbi Tony Bayfield, Rabbi Michael Hilton, Rabbi Margaret Jacobi, Rabbi Jonathan Magonet, Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Rabbi Norman Solomon Il cristiano:Christian: Revd Eric Allen, Revd John Bowden, Preb. Marcus Braybrooke, Revd Alan Race, Dr Jenny Sankey Musulmano:Muslim: Mr Rumman Ahmed, Dr Roger Abdul Wahhab Boase, Imam Abduljalil Sajid, Dr Ataullah Siddiqui . Più dettagli: http://www.cuii.org/platformtruths.htm Raccolto Da------- M.S.A. Shobuz __________________________________________________________________________________________ Gli Ebreidi verità, cristiani e Musulmani Tengono in Comune Gli Ebrei di verità, cristiani e Musulmani Tengono in Comune Da Msgr. Il Joseph M. Champlin Piuttosto che dimora sulle differenze e sulle dispute, gli Ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani hanno bisogno di concentrarsi sulle credenze religiose che può portare ci insieme nella pace. IL DICEMBRE 2001 questione di prese Nazionali Geografiche un che la stuzzicando storia di copertina, "Abraham: Il Padre di Tre Fedi." Szulc di Ragazzino di autore, in una prova attentamente fatta ricerche su ed illustrata, dimostra come cristiano, le tradizioni Ebrei e Musulmani religiosi ciascuno riverisce profondamente l'Abraham di patriarca. Ma Abraham non è il solo popolo spirituale che queste fedi dividono. In quest'articolo, esaminarò 10 fra molto, includendo nostro padre nella fede, Abraham. Una consapevolezza più grande ed un apprezzamento di questi popoli religiosi potrebbero aiutare costruisce l'unità fra le persone nettamente divise in questo nostro mondo. Un Dio Per essere Musulmano nei mezzi di essenza e pubblicamente credendo privatamente nell'un, Dio divino,, trascendente, onnipotente, Allah in Arabo. In modo interessante, la radice di questa parola Araba per Dio è identica alla radice della parola Ebrea per Dio. Musulmani usano molti bei nomi per Allah, ogni descrivere una qualità divina. I termini più comuni sono Il Caritatevole Un ed Il Misericordioso Un. Quei concetti di Dio forniscono un capire teologico per la dogana Musulmana circonda la preghiera. Collegato con quella fede nell'un Dio è una credenza che Muhammad è il messaggero di Dio. Questo profeta è né il fondatore della religione Musulmana né un individuo divino. Piuttosto, è l'ultimo di Dio molti messaggeri a questo mondo che include Abraham, Moses e Jesus. La credenza in questi due punti consente una persona entrare Islam e è diventata Musulmano. La lettura attraverso la Bibbia Vecchio Testamento, anche conosciuto come il Primo Testamento o le Scritture ebraiche, uno scopre la rivelazione di questo Dio a une persone scelte. Dio comanda questo personsâ Ebreo€”vivendo nel mezzo del culturesâ politeista€”di essere fedele aderindo a una religione monoteistica anche se circondato dalle tentazioni. "Chi sono sono," Dio dice a Moses, "il Dio di Abraham, il Dio di Isaac, il Dio di Giacobbe" (l'Esodo 3:14-15). In dare le Persone Scelte i Dieci Comandamenti, il Supremo È dichiara, "io, il Signore, sono il suo Dio.... Lei non avrà altri dei inoltre me....Lei non si inchinerà giù prima che loro o loro adora. Per me, il Signore, il suo Dio, sono un Dio...geloso " (Deuteronomy 5:6-9). I discepoli di Christ accettano quest'insegnamento delle Scritture ebraiche e hanno la fede nell'un vero Dio. Cristiani di Trinitarian, comunque, crede anche nei Jesus' insegnando di Dio il Padre, il Figlio ed il Santo Spirito. Quel mistero centrale della Trinità è problematico per per le persone Ebree e Musulmane. Tuttavia, malgrado una differenza cosí significativa, cristiano, i credenti Ebrei e Musulmani dovrebbero essere molto comodi discutendo insieme ed adorando l'un Dio che tengono in comune. Assistenza divina
I cristiani portano seriamente queste parole di Jesus: "Chiede e le sarà dato; cerca e lei troverà; il colpo e la porta saranno aperti a lei" (Matthew 7:7); "È Venuto a me, tutto il lei che lavora e sono caricato, e le darò riposa" (Matthew 11:28); "Tutta il che lei chiede nella preghiera, crede che lei lo riceverà e sarà il vostro" (Marca 11:24). La credenza in quei piombi di parole a ogni tipo di petizione di prayerful per ogni bisogno concepibile. Che preghiamo in questa maniera abbiamo la fede che Dio intervengono nei nostri viveri e risponde alle nostre preghiere. La storia ebrea, come registrato nel Vecchio Testamento, osserva intervento cosí divino o l'assistenza come un dato. L'angelo di Passover, la separazione di Mar Rosso ed il manna dal cielo sono ma pochi esempi di che Dio ha fatto per loro nel passato, fa proprio ora e continuerà a fare nel futuro. Il salmo 88 riflette quella fiducia: "O il Signore, il mio Dio, dal giorno piango fuori; di notte rumoreggio nella sua presenza. Lasciare la mia preghiera è venuta prima che lei; inclinare il suo orecchio alla mia chiamata per l'aiuto" (il Salmo 88:2-3). La preghiera Musulmana di preghiera può essere ugualmente intensa, ma più generale nella sua indicazione. Queste petizioni mettono a fuoco piuttosto sul submission alla volontà del Caritatevole e Misericordioso Un. Chiedono l'aiuto a divino di stare il corso, per la guida e per l'aiuto progetto dell'Allah seguente durante il mezzo di avversità. Tutti i tre gruppi religiosi credono che Dio venga alla nostra assistenza, ed i loro membri pregano in conseguenza. Preghiera quotidiana Un praticare la persona Ebrea si è aspettato pronunciare le acclamazioni di lode o una preghiera di berakah almeno 100 volte quotidianamente. Un'esclamazione breve, "Benedetto la sono, il Signore," riconosce con l'adorazione e con la gratitudine i regali maggiori e minori da Dio hanno ricevuto ogni giorno: per esempio, il sonno e l'acqua, l'aria ed il cibo, gli amici e lavora, la salute e la medicina, un arcobaleno ed un tramonto. Un'invocazione prima che mangiare ed una riunione con parecchi altri per il piccolo-gruppo preghiera quotidiana nella sinagoga sono degli elementi similmente comuni della tradizione Ebrea. Musulmani devono pregare cinque volte un giorno con ogni preghiera richiedendo cinque a 10 minuti. Questi accadono all'alba, il pomeriggio, dopo il pomeriggio, seguendo il tramonto e di notte. La preghiera è recitata affrontando Makkah o Mecca, la macchia sacra dove Musulmani mantengono che il Gabriel di Angelo ha parlato dapprima a Muhammad. Il credente si inginocchia su una stuoia di preghiera, se possibile, con la fronte toccando il suolo. La posa e le parole trasportano un senso di submission, l'adorazione e la fiducia. I cristiani che seguono la Liturgia romana cattolica delle Ore pregano sette volte un giorno come il Salmo suggerisce. Questo copre l'Ufficio di Letture, la Mattina, la Sera e la Preghiera di notte, più tre Preghiere di Giorno brevi. Gli altri osservano probabilmente un più modello informale di preghiere di mattina e sera con una grazia, benedicendo o la preghiera prima dei pasti. Questo tipo di irregolarità manca la precisione e la ripetizione del Musulmano e le tradizioni Ebree, ma riflette un valore comunemente diviso di preghiera quotidiana. Culto settimanale A causa del 11 settembre, gli Americani sono molto più consapevole di dogana Musulmana religiosa. Alcuni giornali hanno pubblicato delle relazioni estese su Islam negli Stati Uniti, includendo gli Articoli di Fede e le Cinque Colonne di Islam. Le storie hanno riferito anche sul numero significativo di persone che è venuto alle moschee ogni venerdì per le preghiere speciali dopo il mezzogiorno. Mentre venerdì è il giorno di culto settimanale per Musulmani, sabato è l'osservanza di Sabato ebraico per le persone Ebree. È osservato da venerdì di tramonto a sabato di tramonto ed include il servizio di sinagoga sulla mattina di sabato ed il giorno sé, il dedicated agli avvenimenti di riposo e famiglia personale. La maggior parte dei cristiani celebra il Sabato ebraico su domenica, un movimento ha fatto nei prima secoli prima come discepoli di Jesus sono ricordati la sua Risurrezione e la discesa di Pentecost del Santo Spirito, entrambi che è accaduto su domenica. La forma di osservanza cambia secondo delle tradizioni diverse cristiane, ma tutta il si aspetterebbe, idealmente, la presenza a un servizio di culto pubblico e la risoluzione di lavoro inutile. Domenica celebra la creazione di Dio degli sforzi di mondo e Christ per risparmiare tutto. Il punto cruciale è qui che le tre religioni osservano una serie di giorno settimanale a parte per la preghiera pubblica e la ricreazione personale Per il Musulmano, il digiuno inizia con un pasto leggero prima del daybreak, poi nessun'acqua, nessuno cibo o nessuna bevanda fino a dopo il tramonto. Inoltre, durante quel tempo ci è essere nessuna relazione sessuale, nessuno tabacco, sparlando o mentire. 5. Digiunare I cristiani, seguendo l'esempio di Jesus che ha digiunato per 40 giorni e 40 notti, riconosce il bisogno di alcuno digiunare o lo stesso-diniego nei loro viveri. Nei prima secoli, mercoledì e venerdì sono stato generalmente osservati dei come giorni di digiuno. In più tempi contemporanei, la stagione Quaresimale da Mercoledì delle ceneri finché Pasqua domenica è il periodo esteso (40 giorni, se lei conta dei soltanto giorni feriali) di stesso-diniego di cristiano. Quel tipo generico di digiunare porta molte forme, ma ha come il suo scopo per ricordarsi le sofferenze di Jesus e purificare o preparare i nostri cuori per la Risurrezione. Le persone ebree praticano un digiuno stretto e totale su Yom Kippur, il maggiore santo giorno nella caduta, con nessuno mangiare o con bere dal tramonto al tramonto. Lo fanno per la riconciliazione o pulendo dai peccati personali o dai misfatti. Molto anche digiuno in agosto su Tisha, nella memoria luttuosa della distruzione del Tempio. Musulmani digiunano durante Ramadan, il nono mese del calendario Islamico, che è basato sui calcoli lunari. Il digiuno di Ramadan fa cristiano o i digiuni Ebrei sembrano come il gioco del bambino. Per il Musulmano, il digiuno inizia con un pasto leggero prima del daybreak, poi nessun'acqua, nessuno cibo o nessuna bevanda fino a dopo il tramonto. Inoltre, durante quel tempo ci è essere nessuna relazione sessuale, nessuno tabacco, sparlando o mentire. Il Ramadan è per Musulmani un mese lungo, duro. Tuttavia, il digiuno loro aiuta a obbedire Dio, è più sensibile alle sofferenze di altri, sviluppa lo stesso-disciplina ed apprezza la loro unità con tutti gli altri Musulmani digiunando allo stesso tempo nella moda simile. Almsgiving Le parole seguenti di Jesus in Matthew 25 possono fare qualunque cristiano scomodo. Ero, osserva, affamato, assetato, uno straniero, nudo, malato e nella prigione, ma lei non si è curato di me. "Che lei non ha fatto per uno di questo meno ones, lei non ha fatto per me" (25:45). Nella risposta, cristiani tentano di dividere una porzione del loro tempo, il loro talento ed il loro tesoro con gli altri, soprattutto i poveri, dando a volte agli individui ed incanalando a volte dei contributi per raggruppare gli sforzi. Per esempio, alla nostra Cattedrale di Syracuse, un centro di urgenza fornisce quasi 500 famiglie ogni mese col cibo donato da parecche parrocchie locali. Per uni anni di dozzina adesso, il laypersons di volontario ha sovvenzionato e ha fornito di personale un programma che fornisce una colazione calda ogni mercoledì a di 100 uomini senzatetto. La chiesa sovvenziona alla grande spesa la nostra scuola di chi studenti è soprattutto non-cattolico, nero e disegnato da di sotto-la povertà-livello-le case di reddito. Musulmani applaudirebbero quest'almsgiving. Il Profeta ha detto, "non è credente che mangia il suo riempe mentre il suo vicino rimane affamato dal suo lato." Ogni Musulmano ha il dovere per pagare una tassa specificata, il procede di cui sono usato per le cause buone o per i poveri. Questa elemosina può essere data direttamente, ma Musulmani sono incoraggiati a dare segretamente. Ciò evita il donatore da sentendo superiore e la persona povera da essendo imbarazzato. Le persone ebree approvano similmente tale dividere con gli altri. Prima sezioni delle Scritture ebraiche ricordano le Persone Scelte del loro obbligo di curarsi del personsâ senza terra e così povero€”soprattutto le vedove, gli orfani e gli stranieri. Un rabbino locale, seguendo quell'ingiunzione, quella copresidenza il raccoglitore di fondi di interfaith in Syracuse e scodella fuori il cibo per un progetto che nutre un pasto caldo ogni pomeriggio a 200 persone senzatetto. Santi Luoghi Una volta in una vita, se finanziariamente e fisicamente capace, ogni Musulmano si è aspettato fare un pellegrinaggio a Mecca e partecipa nella celebrazione di cinque-giorno circonda quell'avvenimento. Fra le altre cose, Musulmani ricordano la loro credenza che il Gabriel di Angelo in 610 D.C. ha parlato qui a Muhammad, il profeta di Islam. Ma riveriscono di altri luoghi sacri, soprattutto Gerusalemme. Credono che il Profeta sé asceso nel cielo dalla roccia sopra cui il Duomo della Roccia, il prima monumento Islamico, prima adesso posizioni. Il luogo è anche sacro agli Ebrei, che ricorda il suo collegamento col Tempio. Le persone ebree, certo, loro stessi considera le Persone Scelte e che Dio ha designato Palestina dell'oggi come la loro casa. Gerusalemme è anche sacra a loro, sono come molte altre posizioni nella Santa Terra. La loro liturgia suggerisce tre festival di pellegrinaggio: Passover, Shavuot e Sukkot. I cristiani credono che Jesus sia venuto e dimorato su questa terra, per la maggior parte in quel termed di area la Santa Terra. Sopra gli anni, i milioni di cristiani sono venuti a questo luogo sacro e sono desideroso di visitare le posizioni dove Jesus è stato concepito, nato, è cresciuto, insegnato, ha mangiato la sua Ultima Cena, il suo sangue traspirato in Gethsemane, è morta, è stato seppellito, sorto ed asceso nel cielo. Le dispute sopra questi luoghi, soprattutto nella Santa Terra, ha causato probabilmente le divisioni le più affilate ed il feelingsâ odioso€”come pure l'actionsâ più VIOLENTOo€”fra cristiani, gli Ebrei e Musulmani. Forse un apprezzamento di ogni riverenza del gruppo per le macchie stesse o vicine sacre potrebbe dissolvere alla fine l'odio e ha condotto alla pace. Le persone del Libro Nel Vecchio Testamento vediamo lo spiegare della religione Ebrea. Il Moses ed Aaron sono lí;, anche, sono cosí Abraham ed Isaac, David e Salomone. Durante il servizio di sinagoga di Sabato ebraico, i dirigenti ritirano il velo, rivelando riccamente i rotoli di ornamented contenendo queste parole ispirate di Dio. I cristiani, che chiama loro stessi Semites spirituale, accetta queste Vecchie scritture di Testamento, ma il giudice che conducono a e l'adempimento di scoperta nei libri di Testamento Nuovi, formando insieme la Santa Bibbia. Poiché i 1970, cattolici romani e la maggior parte del mainline i corpi cristiani seguono su domeniche un ciclo di tre-anno di letture bibliche. Mentre questi sono degli estratti soltanto, contengono tuttavia dei campionamenti da quasi tutto il 46 Vecchio e 27 libri di Testamento Nuovi. Per Musulmani, il Profeta è il messaggero, ma il Quran (corano) è il messaggio di Dio. Non è un libro di structured o la serie di discussioni, ma una collezione di messaggi divini. Il Quran etichetta ripetutamente delle persone Ebree e cristiane come "le persone del Libro" ed osserva i loro Libri originali venendo come da Dio. Il Yale l'Università storico Jaroslav Pelikan mantiene che l'ignoranza di Westerners altrimenti bene-educato della religione di Muhammad ed il messaggio del Quran è "non solo abissale, ma spaventare." La cultura di ed apprezzando questi libri attentamente collegati ispirati è sicuramente un passatoio facile e prontamente disponibile all'unità. L'Abraham / Musulmani, anche, Abraham di presa nella grande stima, lo considerando come un grande profeta ed uno di Dio messaggeri speciali. Abraham Le persone certamente cristiane ed Ebree tengono Abraham vicino ai loro cuori. Si meravigliano alla sua fiducia in lasciare di casa per una posizione sconosciuta nuova. Ammirano quella fede che ha causato la sua sacralità o la sua giustizia. Rallegrano nella sua dedicazione e nell'obbedienza a Dio, che ha incitato una compiacenza per sacrificare anche il suo soli bambino e suo figlio. Nella Preghiera di Eucharistic io per cristiani romani cattolici, il worshipers sente queste parole: "il sacrificio di Abraham, nostro padre nella fede." Musulmani, anche, tiene Abraham nella grande stima, lo considerando come un grande profeta ed uno di Dio messaggeri speciali. Durante i giorni del loro pellegrinaggio a Mecca, Musulmani osservano parecchi rituali commemorando degli avvenimenti nella vita di Abraham. Il Jesus e Mary / Musulmani parlano di entrambi il Jesus e di Mary con la riverenza e di rispetto. Credono che Allah o Dio abbiano dato delle rivelazioni non solo a Abraham ed a Moses, ma anche a Jesus e tutti i profeti. Jesus e Mary Musulmani parlano di entrambi il Jesus e di Mary con la riverenza e di rispetto. Credono che Allah o Dio abbiano dato delle rivelazioni non solo a Abraham ed a Moses, ma anche a Jesus e tutti i profeti. Per loro Christ non è messia, il salvatore o divino, ma uno di Dio santi messaggeri. Nel Quran, Mary è il solo nome della donna menzionato. Inoltre, Surah 19, uno dei capitoli i più lunghi nel Quran, porta il titolo "Maryam: Mary." È detto che nei nostri tempi come bene Musulmani hanno un luogo speciale per Mary nei loro viveri religiosi. Il Jesus è il fuoco per cristiani. È il loro insegnante, il loro guaritore ed il loro salvatore. È un modello per loro. È divino, il Figlio di Dio e l'un che ha rivelato il mistero della Trinità più Santa. Mary apparenze frequenti nel Testamento Nuovo la fanno un ingrediente necessario di vita cristiana. L'onore dato ai Jesus' la madre da romano e cristiani Ortodossi è bene conosciuta, sebbene alcune tradizioni cristiane tendono a trovare ciò onorando eccessivo. Rispettare e l'affetto per Jesus rappresenta una sfida reale per le persone Ebree. Lo rigettano come il Messia atteso da tempo. Disapprovano anche dei suoi reclami divini ed i suoi insegnamenti della Trinità. Tuttavia, era nato di una madre Ebrea, è cresciuto in una casa Ebrea e pregato regolarmente in una sinagoga Ebrea. Frequentemente ha citato anche le Scritture ebraiche, e molti del suo le parole sono in accordo con i principi Ebrei religiosi. Mary, similmente, è cresciuto in una casa Ebrea, le tradizioni praticate, Ebree religiose e, secondo alcuni studiosi, sarebbe stato della casa e di lignaggio di David. Il suo Magnificat famoso (Luke porta una forte rassomiglianza alla preghiera del Hannah di lode in 1 Samuel 2 del Vecchio Testamento. Più dettagli: http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2002/Feature2.asp Rimaniamo Diviso Questi 10 popoli spirituali lo fanno confondendo e contraddittorio per testimoniare le parole odiose e le azioni fatte nel nome della religione. Gli ebrei e Musulmani litigano sopra un santo luogo reciprocamente riverito in Gerusalemme. I dirigenti fondamentalisti in Afganistan si risentono di ed arresta otto estranei tentando di portare cristianesimo a quel paese. Alcuni citano il Quran, il libro sacro di Islam, sostenere una guerra santa contro gli infedeli, la distruzione degli Stati Uniti e le azioni suicide nel nome di Allah. Nel mezzo di tale odio e nel mezzo del mancanza di rispetto, di tale violenza e di divisione, una soluzione a lungo termine esiste che sostituirebbe l'odio con l'amore, il mancanza di rispetto col rispetto, la violenza con una pace giusta, una divisione con l'unità. Riconoscere, capire ed apprezzare i molti elementi comuni spirituali che cristiani, gli Ebrei e Musulmani dividono con l'un l'altro può contribuire a questa soluzione. Dott. Anis I. L'Obeid, nato in Libano ed alzato come un Druze Musulmano, ha praticato la medicina negli Stati Uniti per molti anni. Durante il corso di quel servizio, è diventato esperto nell'echocardiography, guadagnando il riconoscimento mondiale in questo campo. Sarebbe d'accordo con la mia proposta. Questo specialista di cuore crede fortemente in un commento che ha sentito una volta: "Ci sono soltanto due tipi di people—quegli amo e quei non so." IL francescano psicologo Padre Goffredo Keefe tiene una veduta un poco simile e sosterrebbe similmente il mio suggerimento. Come un terapista, osserva, "Il più prendo per sapere i miei clienti, il meglio loro amo. Come sento nel dettaglio più grande le loro storie, apprezzo meglio la complessità delle loro lotte. Sono mosso a un rispetto più profondo per loro." Entrambi il sembra mantenere questo principio: Il più so degli altri, il più facile è amare loro. Ed il capire più grande che possiedo di altri, il meglio posso rispettare loro. Possiamo Muovere Verso l'Armonia I 10 popoli spirituali divisi da cristiani, gli Ebrei e Musulmani sono veramente eccezionali. Ma sarebbe inesatto ed il naïil ve non di riconoscere che le differenze reali esistono. Inoltre, gli anni di conflitto hanno generato, fra alcuni, l'amarezza intensa, l'odio e la diffidenza. Malgrado quelle divisioni, se sappiamo e capiamo l'un l'altro migliore, poi dovrebbe essere più facile per noi amare l'un l'altro più. La religione, invece di è una fonte di divisione, potrebbe diventare una base per l'unità. Per tale sviluppo positivo globale di avere luogo, abbiamo bisogno di portare alcuni passi pratici domestici. Gli individui loro stessi possono si educare attraverso le pubblicazioni di stampa o i siti web come il Secretariat per per gli Affari Ecumenici ed Interreligiosi (www.usccb.org/ il seia), le Relazioni Ebreo-cristiani (il www. la jcrelations.rete) ed il (www.mepc.org/links di Consiglio di Linea di condotta di Medio Oriente/ l'educat.html). Le famiglie potrebbero discutere questi 10 popoli spirituali per approfondire la loro propri consapevolezza ed il loro apprezzamento. Le parrocchie potrebbero disporre per le visite a entrambe le sinagoghe e per le moschee. Le diocesi potrebbero facilitare il dialogo pubblico fra cristiano, i dirigenti Ebrei e Musulmani. Ciascuno ha di noi bisogno di portare il passo importante di pregare individualmente e con gli altri "che possiamo essere un" (vede John 17:21), proprio come il nostro che amando Dio ci ha previsti dall'inizio. Non gli ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani hanno usato per indossare il coperchio di testa, o "Hijab," a causa di Islam, /Qualunque studente delle tradizioni Ebree o i libri religiosi vedrà quel coperchio di testa per la donna Ebrea (e gli uomini) è stato incoraggiato dai Rabbini ed i dirigenti religiosi Mentre molti Musulmani chiamano "Hijab", un codice di abbigliamento Islamico, ignorano completamente il fatto ciò, Hijab come un codice di abbigliamento ha niente a che fare con Islam e niente a che fare con QURAN. Il "Hijab" o il velo possono essere risaliti a prima civilizzazioni. Può essere trovato in prima e l'arte tardi romana e greca. La prova può essere vista nelle scoperte archeologiche se nei frammenti di terraglie, nei dipinti o nei codici civili registrati. Nella cultura Greco-romano, entrambe le donne e gli uomini hanno indossato la copertura di testa nei contesti religiosi. La tradizione di indossare il velo (dalle donne) ed il headcover (dagli uomini) è stato poi adottato dagli Ebrei che ha scritto esso nel Talmud (Talmud uguaglia il Hadiths e Sunna, né sono le parole di Dio) poi i cristiani hanno adottato lo stesso. Un pozzo ha rispettato il Rabbino ha spiegato una volta a un gruppo di giovani donne Ebree, "non troviamo un comando diretto nel mandating di Torah che le donne coprono le loro teste, ma sappiamo che questo è stato il che continuando usanza per le migliaia di anni." Dopo che la morte del Muhammad di profeta, gli scrittori dei libri di hadith hanno adottato e hanno incoraggiato la tradizione antica di copertura di testa. Il libro di Hadith' gli scrittori hanno preso dagli Ebrei come hanno fatto con molte altre tradizioni, e loro ha dichiarati al profeta poiché il Quran non l' ha comandato. Qualunque studente delle tradizioni Ebree o i libri religiosi vedrà quel coperchio di testa per la donna Ebrea (e gli uomini) è stato incoraggiato dai Rabbini ed i dirigenti religiosi. Le donne dotate di spirito di osservazione Ebree coprono tuttavia le loro teste la maggior parte del tempo e specialmente nelle sinagoghe, nei matrimoni, e nelle festività religiose. Le donne cristiane coprono le loro teste in molte occasioni religiose mentre le suore coprono le loro teste sempre. Non come possiamo aspettarsi gli Arabi tradizionali, di tutte le religioni, gli Ebrei, cristiani e Musulmani hanno usato per indossare il coperchio di testa, o "Hijab," a causa di Islam, ma a causa della tradizione. Non in arabia saudita, su tuttora la maggior parte degli uomini coprono le loro teste, a causa di Islam ma a causa della tradizione. L'Africa del nord è saputa per la sua Tribù (Tuareg) ciò ha gli uomini Musulmani indossando "Hijab" invece di donne. Qui la tradizione ha il hijab in retromarcia. Se indossando Hijab è il segno della donna pia e giusta Musulmana, Teresa di Madre sarebbe stato la prima donna essere contata. Nel riassunto, il hijab è un vestito tradizionale e ha niente a che fare con Islam o la religione. Nelle certe aree del mondo, gli uomini sono l'ones che indossa il hijab mentre negli altri che le donne fanno. Che la mescolando religione con la tradizione è una forma di idolworship, poiché i discepoli di tradizioni seguono delle leggi dalle fonti diverso dalle scritture di Dio e lo pretendono per essere da Dio. L'Idolworship è il solo peccato imperdonabile se mantenuto fino alla morte. Non ignorare che Dio le chiede di fare nel Suo libro, o seguendo le leggi innovate dichiarato nell'il Quran, è un segno chiaro di ignorare di Dio ed il Suo messaggio. Quando la tradizione rimpiazza il comandamento di Dio, la vera religione porta un secondo luogo. Dio non accetta mai per essere il secondo, Dio deve essere sempre il PRIMO ed a lui non ci è secondo. Tutto il Dio è Un e Soltanto. Non noi il belive esso o. http://www.submission.org/dress.html ______________________________________________________ Raccolto da ---- M.S.A. Shobuz U.S. warplanes killed several civilians and wounded many others, including a 6-week-old baby, in the southern province of Zabul.Afghan villagers said that U.S. warplanes killed several civilians and wounded many others, including a 6-week-old baby, in the southern province of Zabul.
Zabul Governor Ali Khail was quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying that U.S. forces made a "mistake" during recent military operations in the province. He added that villagers were among casualties. According to witnesses, the U.S. raids took place on Monday night and early Tuesday in the Rauf village, which is located in the remote district of Deh Chopan in Zabul Province. Villagers said that three members of the same family were killed in the attacks. The AP quoted a local woman, Sadia Bibi, 50, as saying that her brother, his wife and their 16-year-old son had been killed in the attack. "The children were crying and they were very afraid. These planes killed my relatives. We are poor and innocent people. Why are they killing us?" she asked. Bibi's daughter and her one-and-a-half-old grandson were also injured in the attack. She said they had wounds in their hands and legs after they were hit by pieces of bricks during the raids. They are being treated by doctors in Qalat, the provincial capital, she said. A relative who brought the casualties to the hospital, Abdul Halim, 35, also said a nearby house had been hit, and that his neighbor died in the bombardment. A fourth victim, a woman, died on Thursday morning after she was taken to Kandahar for treatment, the BBC reported. Two other wounded women, who are in a serious condition, were also transferred to Kandahar. "We have received six wounded people from the bombing and they say that three civilians died," Abdul Malik, a doctor at Qalat's hospital, said. Observers estimate that the number of civilians killed in Rauf could be higher. Residents said there were at least 18 casualties. But the U.S. military denied that civilians were at the scene of Monday's fighting. "My understanding is that our intelligence shows no civilians in this area. We don't have any assessment of any civilians in this area," U.S. military spokeswoman Lt Cindy Moore said. The military also said that one of its soldiers and "at least 16 enemy forces" were killed in Monday's raids. It added that a U.S. soldier and six fighters died in fighting in the south-eastern Paktika Province on Thursday, bringing to six the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in the past week. Afghan officials and human rights organizations have long complained about civilian casualties in U.S. military operations. Last month, the U.S. army admitted that 17 Afghan civilians, including women and children, died in an air raid by U.S. forces in the eastern Konar Province. About 800 people, including U.S. soldiers, have been killed this year due to escalating violence in southern and eastern Afghanistan. Deteriorating security conditions across the country have raised concerns ahead of key legislative elections, scheduled for September 18. Collected By---
M.S.A. Shobuz In the two years since, and after the death of more than 100,000 Iraqis and 1521 US soldiers, and the wounding of dozens of thousands on both sides, US investigators have concluded that all of Bush’s stated reasons for going to war were unfounded.Two Years Later: Was Bush Right?
Collected by---- M.S.A. Shobuz The war in Iraq is illegal. The cost in lives is too high to count. Bombing busses and trains in London is illegalTerrorism is terrorizing or being terrorized, a mode of governing, or of opposing government by intimidation. The term should be used to describe individuals, groups, and governments, which are involved in terrorizing the civilian populations. Corporate media journalists use the term routinely to describe individuals and groups but never use to describe the governments which target the civilian population by killing them, destroying their homes and fields, or by subjecting them to collective punishment. For a balanced approach, both terms of terrorism and state terrorism should be used. - Conflict Terminology, by Dr. Hassan El-Najjar War is terrorism. War is insanity. War is the last resort when all other courses towards living in harmony have broken down. What we know about the build-up to war in Iraq is that the planning stages may have gone as far back as 1997. War with Iraq was inevitable, and no matter what this administration has said through its official spokespersons, and no matter what the President said to Congress, and to the public, it's all been a pack of lies. Have We Had Enough Yet? How about we stop the insanity. How about we hold criminals accountable. That means GW Bush and his whole crime family administration. That means terrorists, that means all of them. If terrorists are conceived of as the insane other, then there will be no end. If the war criminals who are driving the US & UK policy of perpetual war in the Middle East are not brought to justice, it is because insanity that is organized to that degree of sophistication, with that much built-in profit incentives cannot be stopped because the people, in their confusion, have been taken over by fear, terror, and newspeak. The war in Iraq is illegal. The cost in lives is too high to count. Bombing busses and trains in London is illegal. The cost in lives is hard to count because they don't have bodies to work with, they have bits of bodies that must be matched through DNA analysis. That means families are showing up at hospital morgues, police stations and "hospitality centers" with hairbrushes and other personal effects to aid in DNA analysis. War is insane, a group or mob insanity. Last night Big Brother bush was again speaking to young soldiers. It's something he's good at. Stay tuned for the draft. Stay tuned for Iran. Stay tuned for the punchline. GWB will attempt to convince the American people, that unless they "stay the course" they will go bankrupt. War is Big Business and that's the Bottom Line from Big Brother... The real bio-terrorists are in WashingtonWith Iraq invaded and occupied, at last we can all go about our lives free from the fear of anthrax letters in the mail and nerve gas in the subways. That's what the war was all about, right? Disarming Iraq of its chemical and biological “weapons of mass destruction”? In the irony-free zone of the corporate mass media, this may be the righteous sermon, but, as Ellen Ray and William Schapp's Bioterror reminds us, the US has the largest stocks of chemical and biological weapons in the world, has a long and particularly savage history of using them, and of providing them to others to use. Germs were a weapon of choice from as early as 1763, when the first smallpox-laced blankets were given to Native Americans as part of a genocidal land-grab. Poison gas was used by all sides in World War I but the US military led the way — with gas shells accounting for 12% of its total artillery use, double that of Germany. Revulsion against the slaughter and maiming of over 1 million soldiers by gas in the “Great War” resulted in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 to outlaw chemical and biological warfare being ratified by all the belligerents — except the US, which in 1922 established the Chemical Warfare Service as a branch of the US Army. The US Army advocated the use of chemical weapons for an invasion of Japan during World War II (but was overruled by President Harry Truman, but only because he preferred the terror of the atomic bomb). The US also began a biological warfare program during World War II. Anthrax bombs were produced by the US for use against six major German cities, in quantities that could have killed half their civilian populations. Their use was only prevented by technical difficulties and the surrender of Germany. The Cold War soon gave US bio-warriors a second bite of the diseased cherry. Applying knowledge gained from Japanese bio-warfare experts, in a secret deal that provided immunity from prosecution for war crimes, the US military subjected North Korea and China to germ warfare in the early 1950s. A report by a panel of leading international scientists described the dazzling array of germ weapons used by the US military: “feathers infected with anthrax; lice, fleas and mosquitoes dosed with plague and yellow fever; diseased rodents; and various instruments contaminated with deadly microbes — toilet paper, envelopes and the ink in fountain pens.” South-East Asia's “communist villains” justified the use of record amounts of conventional weapons by the US military in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia — and the most massive campaign of chemical warfare in history. Fifty-five million kilograms of toxic defoliants were dropped on Vietnam alone in the 1960s, mainly Agent Orange which contained dioxin, a toxin 100 times more poisonous than cyanide. Twelve per cent of the south of Vietnam was dosed with this chemical. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese people, as well as thousands of US military personnel, continue to suffer the effects of dioxin poisoning, such as cancer, neurological disease, liver damage, miscarriages and infant deformities (including hundreds of babies born without eyes). Such is the price of US-style “freedom”. In 1975, the US “banned” the development of biological (but not chemical) weapons, by ratifying the international Biological Weapons Convention. However, the “ban” applied only to “offensive” research not “defensive” programs, a meaningless distinction because the knowledge gained from the former can be, and is, used for the latter. The biological and chemical research carried out by the Department of Defense (and the CIA) at more than 100 sites (including universities and corporations like Dow Chemicals) is conducted in great secrecy, keeping the crossing of the line between “defensive” and “offensive” research away from prying eyes. The US has obstructed an international protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention on verification and compliance measures that would allow international inspectors into US facilities. Just how permeable the membrane is between “defensive” and “offensive” biological warfare research was demonstrated by the severe outbreak in 1981 of the mosquito-borne dengue fever in Cuba (another acceptable target for US biological warfare). Cuba had been free of dengue fever since 1944. There had not been a case of its most fatal form (haemorrhagic dengue fever, which involves internal bleeding) for 80 years. Yet, from May to October 1981, there were 300,000 cases of haemorrhagic dengue fever; at the outbreak's peak, there were 10,000 new cases per day. More than 150 people died, 100 were children. The highly unusual epidemiology — simultaneous outbreaks in three widely separated provinces, with no evidence of contact with people from dengue-prone countries — pointed to the deliberate and artificial introduction of dengue-infected mosquitoes. Who would have the motive and means to wage this dengue war against Cuba? No need to phone a friend. All US governments have hated Cuba ever since the US “lost” Cuba following that country's revolution in 1959. The CIA had long waged biological warfare against Cuba, which included the infection of Cuba's pigs with African swine fever, Cuba's sugar crop with rust disease and Cuba's tobacco with blue mould. The US Department of Defense had been experimenting with dengue fever since 1959. The 1981 dengue outbreak was accompanied by abnormally torrential rainfall, which promoted the rapid spread of infected mosquitos. The US is skilled at cloud-seeding to promote rainfall; it was employed against Cuba in 1969 and 1970 to ravage the sugar crop and in Vietnam to cause flooding. When one of the members of a CIA-sponsored Cuban exile terrorist organisation in Miami spilled the beans in a US court in 1984, Washington's fingerprints were revealed all over the 1981 dengue outbreak. With this record, the US government's finger-pointing at the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein for having used “weapons of mass destruction” is, on the moral hypocrisy ladder, at the very top rung. The manufactured indignation by the Bush administration and its corporate-media megaphones also serves to conceal how the US facilitated the supply of the necessary materials to Iraq that enabled Hussein to use chemical weapons against enemies with Washington's approval (anti-US Iran and rebellious Kurds). It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld, now Bush's white knight war secretary, who in the 1980s was the key US administration official doing the dirty deals to supply Iraq with 12 or more “dual use” biological and chemical agents, including Iraq's anthrax seed-stock. In the anthrax postal scare that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, Iraq was initially fitted-up for the crime by leading administration “hawks”, until the evidence pointed to a former US army biological warfare researcher using anthrax from US government labs. This same bio-researcher had also happened to be in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) at the time of an anthrax outbreak there during the final months of the brutal, US-backed white minority regime's war against the black majority in 1979. Thousands of cattle were killed in the outbreak, which also recorded the largest number of humans ever infected in an anthrax outbreak, killing 182 of them. All but four of the 10,738 human victims were black farmers and labourers. With indispensable help from their US bio-warrior ally, the privileged white minority regime had found a marvellous weapon of mass destruction. With US government agencies currently undertaking a massive extension of biological warfare research capabilities, including ways to aerosolise anthrax and to genetically modify new bio-organisms, Washington's arsenal to destroy and intimidate those who stand in the way of US economic power and empire grows ever more lethal. US imperialism has it all — “legitimate” weapons of mass destruction, “illegitimate” weapons of mass destruction and the corporate media's “weapons of mass deception”. From Green Left Weekly, May 21, 2003. kill them all, and let God sort them out. ---By Pepe Escobar
Collected by---
Shobuz Bhai War For Oil?by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Collected by--- M.S.A. Shobuz Human Rights, the Bush Administration, and the Fight against TerrorismHuman Rights, the Bush Administration, and the Fight against Terrorism:
The Need for a Positive Vision By Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch Leadership requires more than a big stick and a thick wallet. It also requires a positive vision shared by others and conduct consistent with that vision. The campaign against terrorism is no exception. The United States, as a major target, took the lead in combating terrorism. But the global outpouring of sympathy that followed the attacks of September 11, 2001 soon gave way to a growing reluctance to join the fight and even resentment toward the government leading it.1 How was this good will depleted so quickly? In part the cause was traditional resentment of America and its role in the world — resentment which was softened only temporarily by the tragedy of September 11. In part it was opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East. And in part it was growing disquiet that the means used to fight terrorism were often in conflict with the values of freedom and law that most people embrace and that President George W. Bush said the United States was defending. Despite its declared policy of supporting human rights, the Bush administration in fighting terrorism refused to be bound by human rights standards. Despite a U.S. tradition at home of government under law, the administration rejected legal constraints, especially when acting abroad. Despite a constitutional order that is premised on the need to impose checks and balances, the U.S. government seemed to want an international order that placed no limits on a nation’s use of power save its own avowed good intentions. As I write at the end of 2002, these attitudes are jeopardizing the campaign against terrorism. They are also putting at risk the human rights ideal. This is hardly to say that the United States is among the worst human rights offenders. But because of America’s extraordinary influence, the Bush administration’s willingness to compromise human rights to fight terrorism set a dangerous precedent. Because of the leadership role that the U.S. government so often has played in promoting human rights, the weakening of its voice weighed heavily, particularly in some of the front-line countries in the war against terrorism, where the need for a vigorous defense of human rights was great. Human Rights and the Challenge of Terrorism Terrorism is antithetical to human rights. Since targeting civilians for violent attack is repugnant to human rights values, those who believe in human rights have a direct interest in the success of the anti-terrorism effort. Yet, the Bush administration’s tendency to ignore human rights in fighting terrorism is not only disturbing on its own terms; it is dangerously counter-productive. The smoldering resentment it breeds risks generating terrorist recruits, puts off potential anti-terrorism allies, and weakens efforts to curb terrorist atrocities. Terrorism cannot be defeated from afar. Curbing terrorism requires the support of people in the countries where terrorists reside. They are the people who must cooperate with police inquiries rather than shield terrorist activity. They are the people who must take the lead in dissuading would-be terrorists. But if they see Washington embracing the governments that repress them, they will hardly feel inclined to help. Their reluctance only increases if their entire community is viewed as suspect, as many young male Middle Easterners and North Africans feel since Sept. 11. Clearly the United States needs to take extra security measures. But the U.S. government must also pay attention to the pathology of terrorism — the set of beliefs that leads some people to join in attacking civilians, to believe that the ends justify the means. A strong human rights culture is an antidote to this pathology, yet in too many places the Bush administration saw human rights mainly as an obstacle to its goals. Human rights and security are mutually reinforcing, yet too often the administration treated them as a zero-sum game. Even someone as unsympathetic to human rights as President Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War understood the need for a positive vision. He understood that the United States could not only be against communism. It had to stand for democracy, even if at times his support was no more than rhetorical. Similarly, it will not work for the Bush administration today to be only against terrorism. It will have to stand for the values that explain what’s wrong with attacking civilians — the values of human rights. There were hints of such a positive vision in 2002 — in prominent parts of a speech that President Bush gave at West Point in June; in part of his administration’s National Security Strategy, released in September; and in the conditions for disbursing increased international assistance (the Millennium Challenge Account), announced in November. But this rhetorical embrace of human rights has translated only inconsistently into U.S. conduct and foreign policy. The sad irony is that for much of the past half-century, the United States was often a driving force behind the strengthening of the human rights ideal. It took the lead in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, building the international human rights system, and lending its voice and influence on behalf of human rights in many parts of the world. Often this support for human rights was inconsistent — tempered by strategic concerns and a deep resistance to applying international law at home. Yet the U.S. government could still be found at the forefront of many human rights battles, and it contributed significantly to building a global consensus about the importance of human rights as a restraint on legitimate governmental conduct. The Bush administration, too, tried to advance human rights in places where the war on terrorism was not implicated, such as Burma, Belarus, and Zimbabwe. The administration has publicly recognized the connection between repression and terrorism, and to a limited extent tried to promote human rights in some places that were more directly involved in the fight against terrorism, such as Egypt and Uzbekistan. Yet it compromised the long U.S. engagement on human rights in three important respects. First, in several key countries involved in the campaign against terrorism, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, even rhetorical U.S. support for human rights was rare — often nothing more than the State Department’s once-a-year pronouncements in its global human rights report. The administration also showed little inclination to confront such influential governments as Russia, China, and Israel that used the fight against terrorism to cloak or intensify repression aimed at separatist, dissident, or nationalist movements that were themselves often abusive. Second, even when the Bush administration did try to promote human rights, its authority was undermined by its refusal to be bound by the standards it preaches to others. From its rejection of the Geneva Conventions for prisoners from the war in Afghanistan to its misuse of the “enemy combatant” designation for criminal suspects at home, from its threatened use of substandard military commissions to its abuse of immigration laws to deny criminal suspects their rights, the administration fought terrorism as if human rights were not a constraint. Third, the Bush administration intensely opposed the enforcement of international human rights law, from the International Criminal Court to more modest efforts to affirm or reinforce human rights norms. Similar exceptionalism could be seen in such actions as the administration’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming or its blocking of efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention. This opposition suggested a radical vision of world order — a view of the superpower as unconstrained by international law. Certain influential elements in the administration seemed to view international law as an unnecessary encroachment on U.S. latitude — a set of rules to be avoided because they might in the future restrict the United States in unforeseeable and inconvenient ways. Instead, they advocated determining the proper scope of governmental conduct, if not through unilateral assertions of power, then at least through case-by-case negotiations, where America’s overwhelming economic and military strength was more likely to prevail. But even American might has limits. Shared norms — of commerce, peace, or human rights — are needed so that most governments voluntarily abide by them. Pressure may still be needed to rein in recalcitrant governments, but an effective global order depends on most governments living voluntarily by agreed-upon rules. Even if the result is disappointing in a particular case, most governments recognize that a system of law is in their interest over the long run. But that logic breaks down if the superpower routinely exempts itself from the enforcement of international law. If shared norms give way to relations built on power alone, the world will revert to a pre-modern, Hobbesian order. That can hardly be in the long-term interest of the United States or anyone else. The Bush administration’s neglect of human rights in fighting terrorism was visible throughout 2002 in its own treatment of terrorist suspects, its bilateral relations with other governments, and its behavior in international fora. Treatment of Terrorist Suspects Historically, the United States has been expansive in its compliance with the requirements of international humanitarian law (the laws of war) with regard to belligerents captured in the course of an armed conflict. For example, the United States afforded prisoner-of-war status to Chinese soldiers captured during the Korean War even though the People’s Republic of China was not a party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It provided POW status to many captured guerrillas during the Vietnam War. During the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. military convened special tribunals to determine the legal status of more than one thousand captured Iraqis, as the Geneva Conventions require. The United States upheld international standards in part out of recognition that they ultimately benefit U.S. soldiers. Needless to say, the reverse is also true — the failure to comply with the Geneva Conventions encourages noncompliance by others when U.S. servicemembers must depend on the conventions for their protection. Unfortunately, the Bush administration broke with this long U.S. tradition in its treatment of terrorist suspects and others detained in the war against terrorism. A good illustration was the administration’s treatment of the people detained at Guant‡namo Bay, Cuba. The administration’s unjustifiably narrow reading of the Geneva Conventions effectively placed these detainees in a legal black hole where they could be kept in long-term arbitrary detention despite international prohibitions. For instance, the Third Geneva Convention provides that captured combatants are to be treated as prisoners of war until a “competent tribunal” determines otherwise.2 Under the standards set out in the convention, the detainees who were former Taliban soldiers would almost certainly qualify as POWs, while many of the detainees who were members of Al Qaeda probably would not.3 But the administration refused to bring any of the detainees before a tribunal and unilaterally asserted that none qualified as POWs. This flouting of international humanitarian law could not be explained by the exigencies of fighting terrorism. Treating the detainees as POWs would not have precluded the United States from interrogating them or prosecuting them for committing terrorist acts or other atrocities. And POWs, like other detained combatants, can be held without charge or trial until the end of the relevant armed conflict. The administration’s refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions seemed to stem in part from its desire to minimize public scrutiny of its conduct. For instance, in the absence of criminal prosecutions, the Geneva Conventions require that all detainees, regardless of their status, be repatriated once “active hostilities” have ended.4 In the case of at least the Taliban detainees, that would seem to have required repatriation as soon as the war with the Afghan government was over — that is, presumably, after a loya jirga (grand assembly) elected Hamid Karzai president of Afghanistan in June 2002. But by refusing to apply the Geneva Conventions, the administration avoided making such a determination. The Bush administration also breached the rule of law to take custody of some detainees. In October 2001, it sought the surrender in Bosnia of six Algerian men who were suspected of planning attacks on Americans. After a three-month investigation, Bosnia’s Supreme Court ordered the men’s release from custody for lack of evidence. When rumors spread of U.S. efforts to seize the suspects anyway, Bosnia’s Human Rights Chamber — which was established under the U.S.-sponsored Dayton peace accord and includes six local and eight international members — issued an injunction against their removal. Yet in January 2002, under U.S. pressure, the Bosnian government ignored this legal ruling and delivered the men to U.S. forces, who whisked them out of the country, reportedly to Guant‡namo. The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and western Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a drone-launched missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior Al Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. The Bush administration accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, the attack on al-Harethi did not seem to be an extrajudicial execution, given that his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the Yemeni government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi.5 However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers.6 Even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination of the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant. The appropriate line between war and law enforcement was crossed in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed had flown from Pakistan to the United States in May 2002 to investigate creating a radiological bomb. U.S. officials arrested him as he arrived at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and briefly held him as a material witness. Then, instead of the Justice Department charging him with this serious criminal offense and bringing him to trial, President Bush declared him an “enemy combatant.” That designation, the administration claimed, permitted it to hold him without access to counsel and without charge or trial until the end of the war against terrorism, which may never come. With no link to a discernible battlefield, that assertion of power, again, threatened to create a giant exception to the most basic criminal justice guarantees. Anyone could be picked up and detained forever as an “enemy combatant” upon the unverified assertions of the Bush administration or any other government. At the end of 2002, this radical claim was being litigated before U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey in the Southern District of New York. Due process shortcuts also plagued the Bush administration’s detention of some 1,200 non-U.S. citizens whom the government sought to question regarding their links to or knowledge of the September 11 attacks. Of this group, whose number has never been fully disclosed, 752 were detained on immigration charges but treated like criminals. Rather than grant them the rights of criminal suspects, the administration used immigration law to detain and interrogate them secretly, without their usual right to be charged promptly with a criminal offense and (in case of economic need) to government-appointed counsel. Immigration detainees would ordinarily be deported, allowed to leave the country voluntarily, or released on bond pending a hearing on their case. But these “special interest” detainees were kept in jail until “cleared” — that is, until proven innocent of terrorist connections — often for many months. Through the end of 2002, none of them had been charged with a crime related to September 11.7 President Bush’s November 2001 order authorizing the creation of military commissions to try non-American suspects lacked the most basic due process guarantees and raised the prospect of trials that would have been a travesty of justice. In March 2002, the Defense Department issued regulations for the commissions that corrected many of the due process problems of the original order. However, the regulations still allowed the commissions to operate without even the fair-trial standards applicable in U.S. courts-martial. Defendants in such courts-martial are entitled to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces — a civilian court outside the control of the executive branch — and ultimately to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. But the commission regulations permit appeal only to another military panel of people who must answer to the president. That makes the president, through his surrogates, prosecutor, trial judge, and appellate judge. Especially as applied away from the exigencies of the battlefield, these compromised commissions violate the minimum legal requirement of “an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure.”8 If these commissions are used to try detainees who should be considered prisoners of war, and thus are entitled to the more protective procedures of a court-martial,9 the Bush administration would open itself to war-crimes charges.10 This pattern of abuse in the Bush administration’s own conduct sent a signal of contempt for basic human rights standards. It suggested that the administration saw international human rights standards as an inconvenient obstacle to fighting terrorism — one that was readily sidestepped — rather than as an integral part of the anti-terrorism effort. Bilateral Relations In its bilateral relations, the U.S. government made some efforts to promote human rights while fighting terrorism. After September 11, for example, many assumed that Washington's limited promotion of human rights in the front-line states of Central Asia would end; in fact, in some ways it intensified, especially as the war in Afghanistan subsided. It is true that the larger U.S. military presence in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan associated the United States with these countries' repressive policies — as did frequent presidential summits and enhanced aid packages. And the Bush administration consistently exaggerated these governments’ progress toward reform to justify continued aid. But more often than in the past, administration officials pressed the region's leaders to release prisoners, respect media freedoms, and allow civil society to function, in part due to more frequent interaction at all levels between administration officials and governments in the region. The administration also took its first limited steps to use its leverage with these countries to promote human rights, canceling a high-level meeting with the Kazakh foreign minister with the aim of freeing a Turkmen dissident detained on Kazakh soil, and suspending a trade mission to Kyrgyzstan over its refusal to a allow an independently operated printing press.11 In Colombia, linked by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the global war on terrorism, Washington also took several positive steps. In September 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the indictment on drug charges of Carlos Casta–o, the head of the vicious and murderous paramilitary organization, the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia. Other paramilitary and guerrilla leaders with abusive records were also charged with drug offenses. In November, the State Department suspended the U.S. visa of Colombian Admiral Rodrigo Qui–ones, who had been repeatedly linked to serious abuses; that led to Qui–ones's resignation as Colombia's military attachŽ to Israel. The same month, the State Department announced the suspension of military assistance to a Colombian air force unit that had been implicated in a deadly violation of the laws of war and a subsequent cover-up — the first time the United States had suspended assistance to Colombia on human rights grounds. These actions began to signal to Colombia that it must address at least the most extreme human rights abuses. Still, the U.S. government’s dominant concern remained fighting the guerrillas and curbing drug trafficking. That led the State Department, in a May 2002 certification, to exaggerate Colombia’s progress in meeting human rights conditions attached to massive U.S. military aid. In countries that were critical to the fight against terrorism, the Bush administration’s support for human rights was at best inconsistent and at worst completely absent. Afghanistan, the primary focus of anti-terrorism efforts after September 11, illustrated the problem. The military overthrow of the highly abusive Taliban raised the prospect of greater freedom for the Afghan people. And if one judged by Kabul, the Afghan capital where international peacekeepers patrolled, life improved dramatically. But the Bush administration sought security for the rest of the country on the cheap. Throughout 2002, it offered at best lukewarm support to the deployment of international troops outside of Kabul (European governments were equally reluctant) and took few meaningful steps to demobilize factional forces or establish a professional Afghan army. Instead, it delegated security to resurgent warlords and provided them with money and arms. In some parts of the country, the consequences looked much like life under the Taliban — a far cry from President Bush’s vow to help Afghanistan “claim its democratic future."12 For example, Ismail Khan, the Herat-based warlord in western Afghanistan, stamped out all dissent, muzzled the press, and bundled women back into their burqas. Those who resisted faced death threats, detention, and sometimes even torture.13 Afghans who had taken refuge in Iran during Taliban rule complained to Human Rights Watch that they had been freer under the Iranian clerics than they were under Khan. Yet U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after a visit to Herat in April 2002, called Khan an “appealing person.”14 Under growing pressure to address the violence and insecurity outside of Kabul, the Bush administration announced in November 2002 that it would send a small number of soldiers and civil affairs officers to eight to ten Afghan provincial cities, mainly for development work. Their mere presence promised some modestly enhanced security, but it was far from the focused security effort needed to end warlord abuses. In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf pushed through constitutional amendments that extended his presidential term by five years, arrogated to himself the power to dissolve the elected parliament, and created a military-dominated National Security Council to oversee civilian government. But when asked about this disturbing trend, President Bush said, "My reaction about President Musharraf, he's still tight with us on the war against terror, and that's what I appreciate."15 Only as an afterthought did President Bush also mention the importance of democracy.16 With Washington supporting Pakistan’s military ruler and the repressive warlords next door in Afghanistan, it should have been no surprise that anti-American political parties in Pakistan were the big winners in October 2002 parliamentary elections. Their victory as well in simultaneous local elections in the two provinces bordering Afghanistan threatened to complicate U.S. efforts to apprehend any residual Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in the area. In Indonesia, an abusive military and allied militia have been major factors in separatist and communal strife. The government’s inability to hold abusive military figures accountable has been a major cause of popular discontent. Military-sponsored atrocities in East Timor in 1999 led the United States to cut off some military assistance. But with Indonesia seen as a major front in the battle against terrorism, the Bush administration tried to resume military training, even though little if any progress had been made in subjecting the military to the rule of law. In a particularly egregious move, the administration sought dismissal of a lawsuit brought in U.S. court by victims of military atrocities in Indonesia who sought compensation from Exxon Mobil for its alleged complicity in the abuse. The suit, filed in June 2001 in Washington, alleged that the Indonesian military had provided "security services" for Exxon Mobil's joint venture in Indonesia's conflict-ridden Aceh province, and that the Indonesian military had committed "genocide, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, sexual violence and kidnapping" while providing security for the company from 1999 to 2001. The plaintiffs claimed that Exxon Mobil had been aware of widespread abuses committed by the military but had failed to take preventive action. In a July 2001 letter from State Department Legal Adviser William H. Taft, IV, the administration justified its opposition to this effort to enforce human rights standards in part out of its stated fear that Indonesia would retaliate by stopping its cooperation in the war on terrorism.17 A broad range of other U.S. allies in the war on terrorism received similarly soft treatment for their human rights abuses. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin faced only mild criticism of his troops’ continuing brutal behavior in Chechnya; their atrocities only intensified after Chechen militants took some 700 people hostage in a Moscow theater in October 2002. In China’s western Xinjiang province, Beijing has long repressed the Turkic-speaking Uighur majority, China’s largest Muslim population; despite the Bush administration’s occasional criticism of Chinese conduct in Xinjiang, the administration’s decision to designate as a terrorist organization the small East Turkistan Islamic Movement, which was said to be a Uighur movement from Xinjiang, provided new cover for Chinese repression of the Uighurs. The Israeli military in fighting armed Palestinian groups and their suicide bombings continued to employ such abusive practices as the use of excessive lethal force and the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians, yet Washington frequently shielded Israel from international pressure and continued to supply it unconditionally with weapons and military assistance. Because Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir bin Mohamad was outspoken in support of the campaign against terrorism, the Bush administration also muted its criticism of his government, whether for its use of administrative detention or its continued imprisonment on trumped-up charges of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. The overriding message sent by these U.S. bilateral actions was that human rights are dispensable in the name of fighting terrorism. That policy may have provided greater leeway for short-term security measures. But if an important aim was to build a culture of human rights in place of the pathology of terrorism, it sent a dangerous and counterproductive signal — one suggesting that it is acceptable to replace respect for the life of every person with the view that the ends justify the means. International Fora At the multilateral level, the Bush administration consistently opposed any effort to enforce human rights standards. This posture was not entirely new. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have always kept human rights treaties at arm’s length. The U.S. government has never ratified three of the seven leading human rights treaties18 or the leading treaty governing modern armed conflict.19 Even when the U.S. government has ratified a human rights treaty, it has done so in a way that denies Americans the ability to enforce the treaty in any court, whether international or domestic.20 This resistance to enforceable human rights standards only intensified after September 11. The resistance was on display at the March-April 2002 session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the leading U.N. human rights body. Mexico proposed a resolution that stressed the importance of fighting terrorism consistently with human rights. The resolution did not condemn any nation; it simply reaffirmed an essential principle. Yet the Bush administration opposed even this motherhood-and-apple-pie statement. It was joined by Algeria, India, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia — hardly committed supporters of the international enforcement of human rights. Mexico withdrew the resolution. Not until eight months later, in December 2002, did the U.N. General Assembly eventually adopt a similar resolution, when the administration’s opposition failed to derail it. The administration also opposed efforts at the United Nations to strengthen the prohibition against torture. It objected to a proposed new Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, which establishes a system for inspecting detention facilities where torture is suspected — an important preventive measure. The administration’s position was at first puzzling, since the United States opposes torture as a matter of policy and has ratified the Torture Convention. If Washington wanted to avoid scrutiny under this new inspection procedure, it could simply not ratify the protocol, which, as its name suggests, is optional. The administration’s decision, instead, to try to deprive other nations of this added human rights protection stemmed from an evident desire to avoid strengthening any international human rights law that might even remotely be used to criticize its own conduct — especially, one must assume, its interrogation of security suspects.21 The optional protocol came to a vote before the U.N. General Assembly in December 2002; the United States was one of only four governments to oppose it, against 127 supporters. At the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Children, in May 2002, the Bush administration sought to prevent any reference in the final document to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States is the only country in the world not to have ratified the treaty (other than Somalia, which has no national government). The special session — the highest-level U.N. summit on children in a decade — presented an important opportunity to reaffirm the rights contained in the convention. But the administration objected to any mention of the concrete rights of children, preferring vaguer reference to children’s “well-being.” The administration was no better when it came to the rights of women. In December 2002, it launched an attack on the Cairo Programme of Action — a population control program endorsed by 179 countries — by seeking to remove the phrases “reproductive health services,” “reproductive rights,” and “consistent condom use” from a conference document for the U.N.-sponsored Fifth Asian and Pacific Population Conference. The document was adopted over U.S. objections. In addition, the administration withheld $34 million appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund, claiming that the UNFPA supported coerced abortion and sterilization in China. A State Department investigation found no basis for that claim. The UNFPA said this amount could have prevented two million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, and 77,000 infant and child deaths. The administration’s opposition to the enforcement of human rights standards was most extreme in the case of the International Criminal Court. The court has numerous safeguards to address legitimate U.S. concern about politicized prosecutions. Crimes are defined narrowly — more narrowly than even U.S. military manuals. Several independent panels of judges oversee prosecutorial decisions. A mere majority of the states party can impeach an abusive prosecutor (and most of the states party are democracies, given that ratification subjects a government’s own conduct to the court’s jurisdiction, and U.S. allies). Governments can avoid ICC prosecution altogether by conducting their own good-faith investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution. Moreover, the ICC does not purport to exert jurisdiction over a suspect unless the suspect’s government has ratified the court’s treaty or the suspect is alleged to have committed a crime on the territory of a government that has ratified the treaty — both long-accepted bases of jurisdiction. Yet, the Bush administration declared a virtual war on the court. It repudiated former President Bill Clinton’s signature on the ICC treaty. It threatened to shut down U.N. peacekeeping unless U.S. participants in U.N.-authorized operations were exempted from ICC jurisdiction. It threatened to cut off military aid to governments unless they agree never to deliver an American suspect to the court. And President Bush signed legislation authorizing military intervention to free any American suspect held by the ICC — dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act.” With occasional exceptions, the administration did not discourage governments from ratifying the ICC treaty for the sole purpose of addressing conduct by others, and by the end of 2002, eighty-seven governments had joined the court — well above the sixty needed for the treaty to take effect. But the Bush administration’s efforts to exempt Americans from the court’s investigations and prosecutions advanced a double standard that threatens to undermine the court’s legitimacy. By these multilateral interventions, across a wide range of issues, the Bush administration signaled that human rights standards are at best window-dressing. They are fine grand pronouncements, but their universal enforcement — enforcement that might affect the United States even indirectly — was to be avoided. Such hypocrisy only undermined these norms. It also undermined the credibility of the United States as a proponent of human rights, whether in fighting terrorism or in combating more traditional repression and abuse. Consequences for the Campaign Against Terrorism The Bush administration’s willingness to sidestep human rights as it fought terrorism had potentially profound and dangerous consequences. At the very least, it meant that the United States was a party to serious abuse. If Washington provided assistance to abusive warlords in Afghanistan or a military dictatorship such as Pakistan’s, it became complicit in the abuses that they foreseeably committed. In addition, as noted, Washington’s neglect of human rights threatened to impede its campaign against terrorism. As President Bush himself observed, repression fuels terrorism, by closing off avenues for peaceful dissent. Yet if the U.S. campaign against terrorism reinforces that repression, it risks breeding more terrorists as it alienates would-be allies in the fight against terrorism. The administration’s subordination of human rights to the campaign against terrorism also bred a copycat phenomenon. By waving the anti-terrorism banner, governments such as Uzbekistan seemed to act as if they had greater license to persecute religious dissenters, while governments such as Russia, Israel, and China seemed to act with greater freedom as they intensified repression in Chechnya, the West Bank, and Xinjiang.22 Tunisia stepped up trying civilians on terrorism charges before military courts that flagrantly disregarded due-process rights.23 Claiming that asylum-seekers can be a “pipeline for terrorists” entering the country, Australia imposed some of the tightest restrictions on asylum in the industrialized world.24 Facing forces on the right and left that had been designated terrorists, Colombia’s new president, çlvaro Uribe, tried to permit warrantless searches and wiretaps and to restrict the movement of journalists (until the country’s highest court ruled these measures unconstitutional).25 In sub-Saharan Africa, some of the mimicry took on absurd proportions. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni shut down the leading independent newspaper for a week in October 2002 because it was allegedly promoting terrorism (it had reported a military defeat by the government in its battle against the Lord’s Resistance Army rebel group).26 In June, Liberian President Charles Taylor declared three of his critics — the editor of a local newspaper and two others — to be “illegal combatants” who would be tried for terrorism in a military court.27 Eritrea justified its lengthy detention of the founder of the country’s leading newspaper by citing the widespread U.S. detentions.28 Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe justified the November 2001 arrest of six journalists as terrorists because they wrote stories about political violence in the country.29 Elsewhere, even former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic defended himself against war-crimes charges by contending that abusive troops under his command had merely been combating terrorism.30 The inconsistency of the Bush administration’s attention to human rights abroad also weakened an important voice for human rights when the United States did speak out. The most dramatic example was the case of Saadeddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian democracy activist who was sentenced in July 2002 to seven years in prison for his peaceful political activities. To its credit, the administration not only protested but also said it would withhold an incremental increase in aid that might have gone to Egypt. That was a dramatic step — the first time in the Middle East that the United States had conditioned aid on the positive resolution of a human rights case. But in light of Washington’s long history of closing its eyes to human rights abuses in the Middle East, and its failure to protest Egypt’s similar persecution of Islamists for non-violent political activity, many Egyptians distrusted the administration’s motives, and even some Egyptian human rights groups denounced the action. In December, Egypt’s highest appeals court — with a long tradition of independence from the government — reversed Ibrahim’s conviction and ordered a new trial. But Washington’s voice was shown to have been compromised as a means to build broad public support for human rights. Possible War in Iraq As this chapter was written in late 2002, war in Iraq was threatening. Leaving aside the question of whether war should be launched, there was reason for considerable anxiety about how a war might proceed from the perspective of the lives of noncombatants in Iraq. In human rights terms, Saddam Hussein is as bad as they come. In 1988, in the notorious Anfal campaign, he committed genocide against the Kurds. After using chemical weapons on at least forty occasions to drive Kurds from their highland villages, his forces rounded up and executed some 100,000, mostly men and boys. In suppressing the 1991 uprisings, his forces killed an estimated 30,000 Iraqis, mostly Kurds in the north and Shi’a in the south. In the following years, untold atrocities were committed against the Marsh Arabs. On a day-to-day basis, the Iraqi government used arbitrary detention, torture, and execution to maintain power. But the threatened war on Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention in the sense that it would be waged primarily for the purpose of benefiting the Iraqi people. If Saddam Hussein had been overthrown in a palace coup and replaced by an equally repressive dictator who nonetheless was willing to cooperate in ridding the country of alleged weapons of mass destruction, there clearly would be no invasion. That said, it is important from a human rights perspective to stop the possible use of weapons of mass destruction when there is a credible threat of their use. However, any war to be fought in Iraq will be judged in significant part by the degree to which the attackers take into account the potential risks facing the Iraqi people, particularly in light of the atrocities that Saddam Hussein has shown himself capable of committing. First, it will be important to examine whether the attackers did everything feasible to avoid civilian casualties by their own forces. That means, at minimum, avoiding such controversial practices as using cluster bombs near populated areas (as occurred during the Gulf War of 1991, the Yugoslav war of 1999, and the Afghan war of 2001-02). It means not using military force to target civilian morale or to attack political supporters of a regime who are not directly contributing to the military effort (as occurred in Yugoslavia). And it means taking all feasible precautions to avoid misidentifying targets, especially in the case of “targets of opportunity” when the review system is necessarily abbreviated (as occurred in all three above-noted wars but particularly in Afghanistan, where special operations forces in the field were used extensively to identify targets). Second, it will be important to determine whether the United States and its allies took into account the history of abuse already suffered by the Iraqi people and made serious attempts to prevent its recurrence. As noted, on numerous occasions as part of the 1988 Anfal genocide, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds. If upon a U.S. invasion the Iraqi president sees that the end of his rule is near, his history suggests that he might resume the slaughter by using any chemical or biological weapons in his possession to kill many of his own people, either in retaliation or in an effort to embarrass his attackers. During the 1991 uprising, Iraqi rebel forces, both Kurdish and Shi’a, demonstrated that they are capable of summarily executing government officials, Baath Party members, and their perceived supporters. Unless restrained during a new war, there is every reason to believe that they will pick up where they left off, but this time as perceived U.S. proxies. Also in 1991, some neighboring countries closed their borders to people fleeing the war in Iraq. Turkey, in particular, left Kurds to die of exposure to the winter cold on the mountains along its border. Facing the possibility of a renewed war, it publicly threatened to close its borders again. The Bush administration took some steps in 2002 to prevent repetition of these abuses in anticipation of war. It warned Iraqi troops that they would be prosecuted if they used weapons of mass destruction. And it cautioned the relatively organized Kurdish forces against committing atrocities, although that message was more difficult to deliver to less organized Shi’a forces. But it remained an open question whether the administration could avoid repetition of the Kosovo tragedy, when unprepared U.S. troops were forced to watch from the sidelines as the forces of Slobodan Milosevic escalated their attacks on Kosovar Albanian civilians in response to the NATO bombing campaign. The stakes were particularly high because the possible availability of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq threatened killing on a much larger scale. The potential dangers that Iraqis faced heightened the importance of neighboring governments permitting them to flee and take refuge elsewhere. One especially difficult issue concerned combatants taken prisoner. During the Afghan war, the United States took insufficient steps to prevent allied Northern Alliance forces from committing atrocities against prisoners. During the Gulf War, Iraq severely mistreated coalition prisoners of war. The urgency of preventing repetition of those abuses was complicated by the Bush administration’s degrading of the Geneva Conventions at Guant‡namo, since that made some arguments in defense of captured combatants more difficult to advance. The Bush administration was also reticent about its post-war strategy. Having failed to repudiate its “warlord strategy” in Afghanistan, it left uncertainty about whether it would build the rule of law in Iraq. It spoke about bringing senior Iraqi officials to justice, but offered no guarantee of fair trials and independent tribunals. It remained vague about whether it would proceed against only a “dirty dozen” top officials or ensure at least some form of accountability for people further down the chain of command. It made no offer to subject its own conduct and that of its allies to international scrutiny, leaving the impression that it might settle for victor’s justice. The resolution of these issues would play an important part in determining whether, even with Saddam Hussein gone, possible war with Iraq would hold much promise of improving the plight of the Iraqi people. Conclusion The security threat posed by terrorism should not obscure the importance of human rights. Military or police action can be seductive. It leaves the impression that the problem is being addressed firmly, head-on. Concern with human rights, by contrast, may seem peripheral — of long-term utility, undoubtedly, but not a high immediate priority. That view is profoundly mistaken. An anti-terrorism policy that ignores human rights is a gift to the terrorists. It reaffirms the violent instrumentalism that breeds terrorism as it undermines the public support needed to defeat terrorism. A strong human rights policy cannot replace the actions of security forces, but it is an essential complement. A successful anti-terrorism policy must endeavor to build strong international norms and institutions on human rights, not provide a new rationale for avoiding and undermining them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Adam Clymer, World Survey Says Negative Views of U.S. Are Rising, New York Times, Dec. 5, 2002; the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, “What the World Thinks in 2002: How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America” (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165). 2Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949 (Third Geneva Convention), Art. 5. The United States ratified the convention in 1955. 3 Taliban detainees should have been eligible for POW status under Article 4(A)(1) of the Third Geneva Convention, which grants such status unconditionally to “[m]embers of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict.” The same should have been true for Al Qaeda detainees who had belonged to a militia “forming part of” the Taliban forces. Id. However, Al Qaeda members operating outside of Taliban structures would have to meet a separate four-part test under Article 4(A)(2) of the convention — having a responsible chain of command, wearing a distinctive sign, carrying arms openly, and respecting the laws and customs of war. Because these Al Qaeda members would likely fail one or more of these requirements, they would probably be ineligible for POW status. 4Third Geneva Convention, Art. 118. 5 Brian Whitaker and Duncan Campbell, “CIA missile kills al-Qaida suspects: US admits involvement in Yemen attack by drone,” The Guardian (London), November 5, 2002; see also James Risen and David Johnston, “Bush has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists,” New York Times, Dec. 15, 2002; “No holds barred: Yemen and the war on terrorism,” The Economist, Nov. 9, 2002. 6The New York Times quoted unnamed U.S. officials stating that the CIA and FBI would “seek to capture terrorists when possible and bring them into custody,” James Risen and David Johnston, “Bush has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists,” New York Times, Dec. 15, 2002, but no such formal pronouncement was made publicly. 7 For more on the Bush administration’s abuse of immigration laws to conduct criminal investigations, see Human Rights Watch, Presumption of Guilt: Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees, Aug. 2002 ( http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/us911/Index.htm#TopOfPage). 8 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), Art. 75. Although the United States has not ratified Protocol I, the requirements of Article 75 nonetheless bind the United States because they reflect customary international law. 9 Third Geneva Convention , Art. 102 (POWs can be “validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members or the armed forces of the Detaining Power”). 10 Third Geneva Convention, Art. 130 (defining “grave breaches,” or war crimes, to include “willfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by this Convention”). 11 Human Rights Watch conversations with State Department. See also Human Rights Watch, Kazakhstan: Turkmen Dissident in Grave Danger of Deportation, Sept. 13, 2002; (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/kazakh0913.htm); Glenn Kessler and Peter Slevin, “Cheney Is Fulcrum of Foreign Policy; In Interagency Fights, His Views Often Prevail,” Washington Post, Oct. 13, 2002. 12 Remarks by the President on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan, The White House, Oct. 11, 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021011-3.html). 13 Human Rights Watch, "We Want to Live As Humans": Repression of Women and Girls in Western Afghanistan, Dec. 2002 (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/afghnwmn1202/); Human Rights Watch, “All Our Hopes Are Crushed”: Violence and Repression in Western Afghanistan, Oct. 2002 (http://hrw.org/reports/2002/afghan3/). 14 Linda D. Kozaryn, “'On the Edge' with Rumsfeld in Afghanistan,” American Forces Press Service, May 3, 2002 (http://www.vnis.com/vetnews/usdefense/usdefense2002/usdefense2002-018.htm#7); see also Glenn Kessler, “Study Cites Repression By Afghan Governor,” The Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2002. 15 President Tours Area Damage by Squires Fire, Ruch, Oregon, Aug. 22, 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020822-1.html). 16 Id. 17 For a copy of the Taft letter, see http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/exxon072902.pdf. For a discussion of the lawsuit, see Human Rights Watch, “U.S./Indonesia: Bush Backtracks on Corporate Responsibility,” Aug. 7, 2002 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/exxon080702.htm). 18 The United States has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 19Protocol I. 20 For a discussion of the methods that the U.S. government has used to prevent judicial enforcement of human rights treaties, see Kenneth Roth, “An Empire Above the Law,” Bard Journal of Global Affairs, Fall 2002; Kenneth Roth, “The Charade of US Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties,” 1 Chicago Journal of International Law 347, Fall 2000. 21 See, e.g., Dana Priest and Barton Gellman, “U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations: 'Stress and Duress' Tactics Used on Terrorism Suspects Held in Secret Overseas Facilities,” Washington Post, Dec. 26, 2002. 22 For more on the human rights record of these countries in 2002, see Human Rights Watch, World Report 2003, pp 216-29 (China), 350-59 (Russia), 382-90 (Uzbekistan), 459-72 (Israel). See also Human Rights Watch, “Russia: Clock Running Out for Displaced Chechens in Ingushetia,” Dec. 26, 2002 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/russia1226.htm); Mike Jendrzejczyk, “Condemning the Crackdown in Western China,” Asian Wall Street Journal, Dec. 16, 2002; Reuters, “China steps up call to fight Muslim separatists,” Dec. 23, 2002. 23 World Report 2003, pp 488-96. 24 Human Rights Watch, “By Invitation Only”:Australian Asylum Policy, Dec. 10, 2002. 25 World Report 2003, p. 127. 26 Human Rights Watch, “Uganda Attacks Freedom of the Press: Closes Main Independent Newspaper,” Oct. 11, 2002 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/10/uganda1011.htm). 27 Human Rights Watch, “Leading Liberian Journalist Re-Arrested: Facing Possible ‘Terrorist’ Charges, July 4, 2002 (http://hrw.org/press/2002/07/liberia0704.htm). 28 Fred Hiatt, “Truth-Tellers in a Time of Terror, Washington Post, November 25, 2002. See also Human Rights Watch, Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy: Repression in the name of anti-terrorism (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/opportunismwatch.htm#Eritrea); Human Rights Watch, “Eritrea: Cease Persecution of Journalists and Dissidents,” May 16, 2002 (http://hrw.org/press/2002/05/eritrea0516.htm); Human Rights Watch, “Escalating Crackdown in Eritrea: Reformists, Journalists, Students At Risk,” Sept. 21, 2001 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/09/eritrea0921.htm). 29 Human Rights Watch, “Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy: Repression in the name of anti-terrorism” (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/opportunismwatch.htm#Zimbabwe). 30 On Feb. 14, 2002, Milosevic delivered his opening defense at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in The Hague: “The Americans go right the other side of the globe to fight against terrorism - in Afghanistan, a case in point, right the other side of the world, and that is considered to be logical and normal. Whereas here the struggle against terrorism in the heart of one's own country, in one's own home, is considered to be a crime.” http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020214IT.htm, pp 248-49. See more details : http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/us091803.htm Collected By---
M.S.A. Shobuz America is fighting a "War on Terrorism"...right!------------------------------------------------------ '''''''''''''''''Fallujah had already become the symbol of the Iraqi resistance after Marines killed 15 civilians in May 2003 - when the city even had a pro-American mayor. Last April, up to 1,000 Iraqis were killed, blown up, burnt or shot by the Americans - two thirds of them civilians, mostly women and children. Now, one of the first targets of Phantom Fury was a Fallujah hospital, qualified by the Pentagon as "a center of propaganda". The fact is, in April hospital doctors were carefully detailing to the world media the hundreds of innocent civilians killed by the American assault. Now, under a strategy of what could almost be called collective punishment, the hospital has become a military target. ''''''''''''''''''' ------------------------------------------------------ Remembering Hiroshima - August 6, 1945 This boy had thermal burns on more than one-third of his body, and his chest and the left side of his belly were seriously injured. He managed to leave the hospital after 3 years and 7 months. This person, who miraculously recovered, is now a father of two children, and recollects what happened then; "At that time I was riding a red bibycle on the streets of Sumiyoshi township (about 2 kilometers from the hypocenter). I was 16 years old, and it was my second year as a telegram messenger. The moment of face, I was blinded by the flash and thrown 3 meters away by the blast that came from my rear left, and my bicycle was twisted and bent. It was strange that I was not bleeding and did not feel any pain until I reached an underground shelter 300 meters away. The moment I reached the shelter, I felt severe pain in my back, which ran through my whole body. From then on, for three days and three nights, I kept on groaning in the shelter, and on the fourth day I was finally rescued and sent to a first-aid station." "In the early stages, the only treatment I received for my burns was the application of a mixture of ash and oil as a substitute for medicine. I do not know how many times I yelled "kill me!" because of the severe pain and desperate feeling." "Thereafter, as a result of the several operations I underwent, I escaped death and returned to work. Since I have once given up my life, I wish to dedicatemy new life to the struggle against atomic bombs." He is continuing to devote his efforts to the prohibiton of atomic and hydrogen bombs. America is fighting a "War on Terrorism"...right! The fact is that no other single act of terrorism against a civilian population in history using a SINGLE device and in one SINGLE shot killed more people in ONE INSTANCE than the horrific American attack on the two cities in Japan, the first of which happened today, 57 years ago. Total City destructions were a hobby of both the Allies and the Germans during World War II. But no other attack on a civilian population was so TOTAL, so INSTANTANEOUS, and having ENDURING CONSEQUENCES as the attacks on Japan. And the weapons used to destroy cities in Germany by the allies were not weapons of mass destruction anyway. Rather, they were "conventional" weapons used in massive amounts. The nuclear weapons are, on the other hand, the obvious "king" of all weapons of mass destruction. This boy, who was burned to death with his hands placed on his chest, leaving an impression of agony, is believed to have been a mobilized student exposed to the A-bomb in Iwakana township, which is about 700 meters from the hypocenter. Besides being horrifying, totally and enduringly destructive, these attacks were even militarily totally UNNECESSARY. Japan was reportedly ready to surrender even before the first attack. Or maybe Truman was trying to impress the Soviets as is speculated. Still even if we ignore our humanity and decide America had the right to warn the Soviets that it had the bomb, the attacks on these cities will still remain exceptionally horrifying. Harry S. Truman could have decided to throw the bomb on an uninhabited island somewhere in the world, and let the Soviets watch the island's destruction. That would have served the need of warning the Soviets just the same. But the real warning Truman was giving Moscow -- in my opinion -- wasn't just that "we have the bomb", or "it works" or even "look at what it can do" but rather he wanted to warn them that "we have enough cold-bloodedness to use it on any CIVILIAN population without a single hesitation or remorse -- and twice". That is what makes that particular attack so frightening: Truman's cold-bloodedness. That's what makes its also the greatest terrorist attack in history. Ever! Citizens who were able to escape from hell on earth that day evacuated to the suburban areas of Hiroshima City and took refuge at first-aid stations set up in public buildings. However, this provided only momentary relief. They started to die one after another at the first-aid stations, and cremation could not catch up with the rate of death, so many of them had to be buried togeter. To me no man is more cold-blooded or horrifying than Harry S. Truman, not even Hitler! And so long as the American political establishment takes no step to apologize for these attacks, the guilt will endure through the successive generations of US administrations, Republican or Democrat! Let me provide you my friends with the essay I wrote on 9/11. Please read it carefully and please think a little bit for yourselves were the truth is. Without emotions or bias. PLEASE. Are Civilians a Legitimate Target of War? In light of many recent and past events; wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and an attack on the US cities of New York and Washington, DC, one has to ask this important question: are civilians a legitimate target of war? Is killing a civilian to promote a cause always to be deemed as terrorism? Or can there be justification by which the killer can claim that there was no other way to get his rights? The question may seem rude and inhuman to many New Yorkers who lost loved-ones in the attacks on the World Trade Center. But, just as equally, the question would seem completely as rude and inhuman to the thousands of individuals that were and still are affected by the US nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II. In that case, America did find justification for the instant loss of thousands of civilian lives. America claimed it was bringing Japan to a quick surrender. In reality this may have been an attempt to catch the attention of the would-be cold war rival: the former Soviet Union. In attacking the World Trade Center, Osama bin Laden [if it was really him who did it] has committed a grievous crime against US civilians; but he too has his own “justifications.” He sees the US army presence in the Persian Gulf ten years after the end of the Second Gulf War as unjustified. He calls it an occupation of Muslim land and a control over its oil resources. [ let me note that I have always had my doubts about the official US story of who done it in 9/11. In writing this essay, I put my doubts aside and went along with the official story. Since then, mounting evidence suggests a possible covert link between the US government and the perpetrators of 9/11, and a lot of questions have risen about the truth behind the incrimination of bin Laden, including the authenticity of that confession tape allegedly found in Afghanisitan. I see no reason that I must accept the official Bush clan story anymore] In retaliation for the murder of US civilians in New York and Washington, America has launched a fierce attack on Afghanistan, killing many Afghani civilians “as collateral damage” in revenge. For ten years the US-lead sanctions against Iraq has caused a slow genocide of Iraqi citizens (especially its children); justified by the fact that the US is fighting the Saddam regime it once helped create. Is the price of slowly murdering an entire civilian population worth it? Former US secretary of state Malden Albright certainly thought so. In Palestine, desperate Palestinians fighting for their lives and an end to occupation blow themselves up in civilian areas where Israeli “civilians” live. They are fighting daily humiliation and death by Apache Helicopters and American-made F-16 fighter jets. But Hey…..why should an occupied and desperate people oppressed by a brutal apartheid army deserve their own version of “justification”? If the Palestinians were a global power like the US, they could find eloquent words for what they are doing and a media to back them up. But they are not. Killing New York and Washington civilians is terrorism, but the collective punishment of the Afghani populous is not? Killing Israelis in desperation to remove oppression is terrorism, but killing thousands of civilians slowly in Iraq or suddenly in two Japanese cities is not? I wonder if the current US administration is willing to apologize to the Japanese people for the murderous actions of Harry S. Truman. I am sure they will find justification as to why they should not! In all these cases, as I see it, killing a single civilian is wrong. Islam taught me that killing one innocent man is like killing “all of humanity”. At war we are instructed “never to cut a tree, kill a child, a woman, an old person, or a man in his temple (i.e., not fighting)”. But things must be put in perspective. For, while America as a world power will always have other options when at war, the Palestinians have none. They have been abandoned by everyone; their Arab bothers (who do nothing but talk), and the biased US government. What’s more, Palestinians are fighting an occupation to gain back only 22% of their historical land, not in fact asking for all that they deserve. What more can they negotiate away, when in fact 53 years Jaffa and Haifa were just as Palestinian as Tolkurm and Ram Allah are today? Where are 5 million Palestinian refugees to go other that to their homes that have become “Israeli” cities and villages? Or are they to be given only limited “reservations” as was finally done to Native Americans? Who has the bigger burden to stop the violence anyway, the occupier or the occupied? Isn’t occupation in itself terrorism? Why doesn’t Israel just get out of land that isn’t its own? So do you still think that killing civilians is always unjustified? Again, I think that ALL killing of civilians is wrong. Unjustified. And, I ask you --if you agree with me-- to protest all symbols of such terrorism. Equally. Ask for the removal of the Enola Gay --the airplane that dropped the nuclear bomb in World War II-- from the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC, now and today! Demand that America start its war on terrorism properly: by putting to trial all those responsible for civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--- in person or in name. Tell the US politicians to stop supplying Israel with F-16s and Apache helicopters which it uses to attack Palestinian cities and civilians. Ask for an end to the inhuman slow genocide of the PEOPLE of Iraq. Demand that medications not be blocked from being sent to Iraq under the pretext that they may be used to make chemical weapons. Remind US politicians that many of the world leaders America now befriends for its own needs are no less oppressors or dictators than its former ALLEY Saddam Hussein is. And please insist that attacking Iraq now will only add to its civilian misery and suffering! America wants to put an end to Iraq’s attempts to threaten its neighbors (a.k.a. Israel) with weapons of mass destruction. The US is acting as the champion of good against evil. But America forgets that the reality is that no other nation used weapons of mass destruction against CIVILIAN populations as the US did to Japan. Is this not terrorism? America politicians should set an example by attempting to repent for America’s past wrongs. They should attempt to deter weapons proliferation EVERYWHERE in the Middle East. The US should also ask Israel to rid itself of its 100 or so estimated stock of nuclear warheads. Already one of the right wing politicians who recently resigned from the Sharon government suggested using them against the High Dam in Aswan, Egypt. That would kill many in the CIVILIAN population of Egypt. Terrorism, do you think? American politicians need to rethink their foreign policy, and act in a more just and fair way. They need to see causes and results as they really are, not as they wish the rest of the world to see them. For then, and only then, will America have any right to define terrorism as it wishes, or fight it as the world’s policeman, judge and jury, as it is attempting to do now…. unchecked and unabated! Mohamed Ismail Physician- General Practitioner Egypt A soldier about to die. This serviceman survived the war, but fell a victim to the A-bomb inside a wooden house (about 1km from the hypocenter). Bleeding from the skin, red specks, stomatitis and hair epilation were observed. The soldier died two hours after this photograph was taken. (Photo by Gonichi Kimura) Kimono pattern. Burned areas on the back and on the dorsal portion of the upper arm show that thermal rays penetrated the black or the darkcolored parts of kimono she wore. (Photo by Gonichi Kimura) Trace of a hat. The exposed part of the face was badly burned by thermal rays. The hat protected the head from a burn. Severe burns to body. The right photograph shows an eyeball of an A-bomb victim who got an atomic bomb cataract. There is opacity near the center of the eyeball. It has been known for some time, through that radiation causes cataracts in animals. But cataracts developed in human beings after the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to a clinical report of 128 cataract cases in Hiroshima during the four years from 1957, 38.3% had atomic bomb cataracts or suspected atomic bomb cataracts. It is reported that 70% of those were within 1 kilometer from the hypocenter, and 30% were within 2 kilometers. A-bomb survivors, as well as a great number of people from domestic and abroad, attend the ceremony performed with the utmost solemnity on August 6 every year. They, each and all, pray for the repose of the A-bomb fallen victims and call out to the entire world for peace. The Mayor reads the "Peace Declaration" embodying this appeal. DEMAND PEACE NOW! UNIVERSAL KINSHIP SOCIETY HOME Collected by : M.S.A. Shobuz Terrorism is antithetical to human rights. Since targeting civilians for violent attack is repugnant to human rights values, those who believe in human rights have a direct interest in the success of the anti-terrorism effort. Yet, the Bush administration’s tendency to ignore human rights in fighting terrorism is not only disturbing on its own terms; it is dangerously counter-productive. The smoldering resentment it breeds risks generating terrorist recruits, puts off potential anti-terrorism allies, and weakens efforts to curb terrorist atrocities. Terrorism cannot be defeated from afar. Curbing terrorism requires the support of people in the countries where terrorists reside. They are the people who must cooperate with police inquiries rather than shield terrorist activity. They are the people who must take the lead in dissuading would-be terrorists. But if they see Washington embracing the governments that repress them, they will hardly feel inclined to help. Their reluctance only increases if their entire community is viewed as suspect, as many young male Middle Easterners and North Africans feel since Sept. 11. Clearly the United States needs to take extra security measures. But the U.S. government must also pay attention to the pathology of terrorism — the set of beliefs that leads some people to join in attacking civilians, to believe that the ends justify the means. A strong human rights culture is an antidote to this pathology, yet in too many places the Bush administration saw human rights mainly as an obstacle to its goals. Human rights and security are mutually reinforcing, yet too often the administration treated them as a zero-sum game. Even someone as unsympathetic to human rights as President Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War understood the need for a positive vision. He understood that the United States could not only be against communism. It had to stand for democracy, even if at times his support was no more than rhetorical. Similarly, it will not work for the Bush administration today to be only against terrorism. It will have to stand for the values that explain what’s wrong with attacking civilians — the values of human rights. Collected by-- M.S.A. Shobuz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ George W. Bush - Terrorist in the White House WAR FOR ISRAEL ------------------------------------------------------ THE WAR FOR ISRAEL - (and you thought the oil was for the U.S.). ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- You are looking at the reason for the war against Iraq. This war is being fought for Ariel Sharon and for Israel's strategic benefit! Thats what Israel does. It has its intelligence organization, Mossad, carry out false flag operations and deceives others into attacking their enemies. In short they get others to fight their wars for them. Israel is in the midst of its plan to use the United States military, which it controls, to conquer Iraq and divert Iraqi oil to the Haifa refinery via the Mosul to Haifa pipeline. The U.S. has built airbases at H2 and H3 (which stand for Haifa 2 and Haifa 3) to protect this strategic pipeline. The pipeline is intact, fully operational, and is being used to covertly send oil to Israel. Paid for with the blood of American soldiers that die in Iraq. Iraq is being turned into another Palestine state for Israel. This war was fought in order to secure Israel's future. Israel, being a parasite nation, needed to create an income stream that would continue if funding from the United States should dry up. They have been working on the plan to steal Iraqi oil for years. Read Israel's Blitzkrieg on Middle East Oil by Joe Vialls for more on this. To quote Mr. Vialls article, "... they are already planning to steal 1,825 million barrels of Iraqi oil per annum. Taking a nominal price of US $25.00 per barrel ... the Israeli-Jewish terrorists stand to make a cool US $45,625,000,000.00 each year .... " [Thats over 45 1/2 Billion dollars a year or $125 million each day!!!] Mr. Vialls claims that the 45 billion a year jackpot is more than just a lot of money, it's a matter of survival for Israel. The reshaping of the Middle East by America's military will allow Israel to: (1) Control the strategic oil reserves in this region which will ensure low cost oil to Israel and ensure their economic survival. (2) Ensure Israel is the dominant military force and the sole nuclear equipped military power in the region for many years to come . (3) Neutralize Israel's enemies in the region. (4) Expand borders per "Greater Israel". The Nile forming the border on the West through Egypt, and the Euphrates on the East through Turkey, Syria and Iraq. (5) Allow even further expansion of borders to encompass surrounding countries. Israel has become the 3rd largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling everything from Uzis to PHALCON airborne early warning systems. Defense Ministry figures show Israeli weapons export contracts were worth $4.1 billion in 2002. Only the United States with $13.2 billion and Russia with $4.4 billion sold more weapons that year. Israel's possesses the fourth largest army in the world. Israel is the only nuclear enabled country in the Middle East. Israel has overtaken England to become the worlds 5th largest nuclear power, roughly equivalent to France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Recent reports indicate that Israel has deployed five different nuclear weapons designs. It is estimated to have 2000-5000 conventional nuclear warheads and many micro nuclear devices like the bomb that destroyed the Sari Club in Bali. (These new nuclear devices only emit alpha radiation that is invisible to a standard geiger counter). In addition they have the neutron bombs, (that can kill people and leave the buildings intact) and hydrogen bombs. Hydrogen bombs are currently the most fearsome and intimidating weapon on earth, capable of causing over 60000 times the damage of a nuclear bomb like the one used on Nagasaki. The Hydrogen bomb is so intimidating that most nations vow never to produce it, though it is really not much harder than producing regular nukes. When we are talking WMD, this is the big Kahuna. Israel has the capability to take out every major city in Europe. Israel refuses to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) or to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities by International inspectors. Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions. A further 33 resolutions against Israel has not seen the light of day thanks to the United States vetoing power on the Security Council. Nuclear disarmament must begin with Israel. Until that time, Arab states in the region have an inalienable "right" and "obligation" to develop similar weapons (of mass destruction) to counter this overwhelming threat to their nations and peoples. Since Israel possess such a large nuclear arsenal, they are able to blackmail the United States into supplying them conventional weapons. They have been known to sell those weapons and technologies to other countries, once they are given to them. The Patriot missile, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, the Lavi fighter, based on the F-16, have all been sold to Beijing. Only direct U.S. intervention prevented Israel from selling Beijing AWACS technology. Zionist forces are in control of the United States. When Ariel Sharon said: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael -- it was no idle chatter. He was telling the truth. They have gained control through the Federal Reserve System [Updated Link] controlling the banks. They are also firmly in control in England. Hence the 2 allies will unite to fight a good fight for the greater good of Israel. Just follow the trail of the money! The United States has given Israel over 90 billion dollars in foreign aid. They continue this aid at a time when U.S. schools no longer can afford textbooks. Yet the standard 3 billion dollars of yearly aid goes on. Then there's the 12 billion in loan guarantees. And now Israel is asking for (and received) a 400% increase in aid. Miftah.org estimates the foreign aid to Israel to be closer to 8 billion yearly. I estimate that Israel receives 9.5 billion a year in aid. Here is the break down: Foreign Aid: $3 billion, Loan Guarantees (normally): $2 billion (Note: the U.S. Congress has forgiven ALL loans to Israel in the past), private tax deductible donations: $1 billion, Israeli bonds: $500 million, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which guarantees all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis: $3 billion (The Oil funding is camouflaged in the Defense budget) = Total $9.5 billion. This $9.5 billion of aid is the standard rate. However, 2003 was an exceptionally good year for Israel. AFTER the Israeli army killed Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer, (which by the way was most likely paid for with your U.S. tax dollars), the U.S. rewarded Israel by giving them an additional $9B in loan guarantees, $1B in military aid - [Would Israel have received $20 billion if they had killed 2 American college students?] So last year Israel hit the lottery to the tune of a cool $19.5 billion. Or, put in another way, in 2003, Israel received $53.4 Million dollars a day from the traitors in Congress. Thats a very solid return on the AIPAC contributions that Israel pays out to U.S. Congressmen. This is part of a broader package of up to $75 billion as emergency aid, directly connected to the war on Iraq. This amounts to 2500% increase in aid to support Israel in a war that they have claimed they are not involved in. Who is benefiting from the war on Iraq? Follow the trail of the money! Each year Congress forgives loans made to Israel which costs U.S. Taxpayers more than all the foreign aid handed out. Some sources indicate with all the hidden costs including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve factored in, the figure is more like $3 Trillion dollars !!!) Thomas R. Stauffer does. The summary of Stauffer's research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. See this article for more: The Real Cost Of US Support For Israel. Israel has installed one of, if not the most, sophisticated missile defense systems in the world. They were the first country in the world to use laser's to intercept missiles, at America's expense of course. In 2000 Israel introduced the Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (THEL/ACTD), the world's first high-energy laser weapon system designed for operational use, to shoot down a rocket carrying a live warhead. In contrast, in December 2002 Resident Bush ordered the U.S. military to begin deployment of their own national missile defense system to protect the United States. Israel has launched its own spy satellite in 2002. A professor at the Israeli Technion-Israel Institute of Technology argued that the recent launch of an Israeli satellite means Israel "has established [its] capability to launch, by means of a missile, a payload to any location on the face of the earth." Israel has acquired three Dolphin class diesel submarines in 2002 that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. According to Pentagon and Israeli officials, Israel now has a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time. Now, Germany has agreed to sell Israel another two Dolphin-class submarines. Israel has its own radar warning system and has created a vast Home Front Command to prepare citizens and medical services for potential attacks. U.S. military has plugged Israel into real-time war monitoring in the war on Iraq. Israel and the United States have set up a joint command post next to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv at which Israeli army officers will be able to view real-time pictures of the movements of American war planes over Iraq in the event of a war. In addition, an American early warning system that is hooked directly into U.S. intelligence satellites over Iraq was transferred to Israel a few weeks ago, [February, 2003] giving Israel direct access to information on any Iraqi missile launches at its territory, with no delays and no filtering. This War Is Also About Water - Israel needs new water sources to allow Israeli expansion plans. Iraq is the major source of water in the Middle East. Just as the war in Afghanistan was fought for the Unocal oil pipeline this war is being fought for oil and water pipelines to Israel. Israel is now conducting assassinations of American citizens on American soil under the guise of "fighting terrorism" with the blessings of the US Government. If a member of Congress were to merely question anything about Zionist political influence in Washington they would be committing career suicide. Many feel that Israel blackmails politicians involved in pedophile rings and uses photographs to control their votes. Very high level politicians have been implicated as well as Bushes. In conclusion the evidence that Israel is behind the invasion on Iraq is more than circumstantial. You just need to look at who stands to gain from all this. Those that can't understand why Dubya is so determined to attack Iraq, probably haven't considered that Israel is running the show. If you just look at who stands to gain from Iraqi oil you see the picture but it doesn't seem to be the whole thing. But when you add the dancing Israelis and Senator Graham's statements about foreign governments involvement in 911 and Sharon’s orders on who Bush is to attack next, the whole picture begins to get in focus. For those who feel 'so what if thousands of Iraqis die, as long as America ends up with the oil'. Those people will be disappointed also. Sure, Bush's buddies, the large corporations will get contracts to rebuild Iraq and make huge profits, but the BIG profits will be from Iraqi oil flowing to Israel. The Bush regime has already indicated it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil. US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) engineered by Henry Kissinger, the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. To ensure the security of the Mosul to Haifa pipeline, the U.S. needs to neutralize Syria. Syria is too much of a risk. Israel wants the Mosul to Haifa pipeline to be secure for many years to come. Two US-made ‘democratic’ regimes in the region, one in Baghdad and the other in Damascus, would secure the flow of Iraqi oil to Israel and free the country from its dependence on pricey Russian oil. The entire Middle East will be reshaped in line with these concerns. More Details : http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html Collected by---------- M.S.A. Shobuz Like any industry reeling from the effects of the global economy the influx of immigrants has shaken up the European sex busines
A billion dollars-a-year sex trade, reputedly one of the biggest of its kind in the world, has sprung up in IsraelTrafficking in Women in Israel After a five-hour drive over the Egyptian desert, Inna crawled through a tunnel under a border fence, brushed sand off her pants and waited with seven other women to be taken to their new jobs. Running from poverty in her homeland of Moldova, Inna had come to the Holy Land to enter a profession as old as the Bible - prostitution! A billion dollars-a-year sex trade, reputedly one of the biggest of its kind in the world, has sprung up in Israel (Occupied Palestine) over the past decade. Every year, hundreds of women from eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are smuggled into Israel. The trafficking is linked to the Russian mafia taking root in Israel as a byproduct of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union. Many of the women are spirited in across Israel's border with Egypt, which runs along 200 miles of desert that is difficult to guard against smuggling. The sex trade is so brisk that Israeli police set up a task force a year ago to deal with human trafficking. "This is seriously like slavery," said Chief Supt. Avi Davidovitch, head of the task force. Offenders get off too lightly, a parliamentary committee says. Courts routinely sentence pimps to community service or short prison terms, the panel said in a report late last year. It called for minimum jail terms of 16 years. Often, the women are mistreated, held as virtual prisoners and beaten by pimps, said Ephraim Ehrlich, an intelligence chief in the police Immigration Bureau. "The people who work in this field have no conscience. All they care about is money," Ehrlich said. "These girls are really the victims." "Many women, 22-year-old Inna among them, are forced to work off their airfare and purchase fees. Some are raped by Bedouin smugglers who get them across the border," Ehrlich said. Their passports are taken by their pimps and they are not allowed to go out alone from the brothels, which are generally apartments in seedy neighborhoods. Using a fictitious name during an interview while being held at a police lockup, Inna said she was forced to see up to 15 clients a day. She said each client paid 30 dollars, with half going to her and half to her pimp. Inna said she was depressed and ashamed and contracted venereal disease. "I couldn't get used to this - the men, the mentality, the treatment," she said. She had arranged for a new passport from the Moldovan Embassy in Tel Aviv and bought a plane ticket home. Her pimp didn't object, she said, because she had paid off her "purchase price" and it is easy for him to bring in new women! But before Inna could use her plane ticket, undercover police raided her brothel and arrested 12 women - 11 from Moldova and one from Ukraine. All were taken to a holding facility in the central town of Hadera to await deportation. Inna and her colleagues refused to testify against their pimps, fearing both retribution from the pimps and the shame of having their families find out about their work. During her six months in Israel, Inna said, she was able to send 3,500 dollars to her mother and sister back in their Moldovan village. That's a small fortune in her poverty-stricken homeland, where she hopes to build a house and learn to be a hairdresser. "After everything I saw here, I don't ever want to come back," she said. Asked why she came, Inna said she was unemployed in Moldova and had come to Israel voluntarily after hearing of women making money as prostitutes. "I wanted to do the same thing," she said, hooking purple-clad, thin legs behind her chair. "But it's too difficult to work with 10 to 15 men a day," she added, averting her large brown eyes. A middleman in Moldova sent Inna to Moscow with eight other women. A day later, they flew to Egypt. After a day in Cairo, they were taken to Bedouin tribesmen in the desert. There, two men drove them at night to the Israeli border. Carrying a small bag with underwear and a toothbrush, Inna crawled through a narrow tunnel dug under the border fence, and arrived in Israel sandy, tired and already homesick. Minutes later, two Israeli Bedouins arrived in jeeps and drove them to an apartment. "Then the pimps came and began to buy us, one by one, and each of us was taken someplace else," Inna said. Inna said she did not know how much her pimp paid for her - although the price can range from 3,000 dollars to 10,000 dollars. She said for the first month, she was paid only 4 dollars per customer because she had to pay off her debt to the pimp. At a police station in Rehovot, south of Tel Aviv, two other Moldovan women talked tearfully with reporters about their lives as prostitutes. One, identified only as Marina, a slightly built 21-year-old, buried her face in her hands when she revealed that two days earlier she had learned she was pregnant. Police said that at her request, she would undergo an abortion before both women were sent home. The area police commander, Rafi Peled, said about 25 women had been arrested and deported after a phone call from Marina led to a major prostitution ring. "We have cut off a big branch of the tree of trafficking in women," he said. "We have not yet uprooted the trunk." -- AP Collected by---- M.S.A. Shobuz Dhaka is closely monitoring the course of the Indian river-linking project (RLP)
There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America.Jews that control the world: Some of this infomation is from the National Alliance's Who Rules America? There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever had a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment. This power reaches into every home in America and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. The mass media gives us our image of the world and then tells us how we should think about that image. Essentially everything we know about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television. It is not only the obvious suppression of certain news stories that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. It's the way the news is reported: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations-all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret the news of the day. Columnists and editors then Remove any remaining doubts from our minds with cleverly worded editorials and commentaries. Employing carefully developed psychological manipulation techniques, they mold our thoughts and opinions so that we follow the fashionable "in" crowd. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, we can still be manipulated. All of the controlled media-television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, and motion pictures-speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the public that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media manipulators. A few corporations ruled by a handful of kosher elite control the minds of the public: ABC/capital cities/Disney- the second-largest media conglomerate today, with 2002 revenues of $25 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman and CEO, is the JEW Michael Eisner. The Disney Empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a "control freak," includes several television production companies, cable networks with more than 100 million subscriber's altogether. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the JEWish Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey. In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in big US markets and has 225 affiliated TV stations and over 3,400 affiliated radio stations. ABC networks begin under the control of the JEW Leonard Goldenson. Disney owns publishing companies, six daily newspapers, over 20 magazines and has a thriving theme park business. A massive media/brainwashing empire under the control of one JEW, Mike Eisner. CBS/Viacom- With 2001 revenues of just over $23.2 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by JEW Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein) Redstone owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom. JEW Melvin A. Karmazin is number two at Viacom and holds the positions of president and chief operating officer. Viacom produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks and owns 34 television stations and180 radio stations in its Infinity radio group. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by JEWESS Sherry Lansing (born Sherry Lee Heimann).CBS Television Network president and CEO is Les Moonves, is a JEW. JEW Al Ortiz is the senior vice president of CBS News. CBS was started by JEW William Paley and controlled later by the JEW Laurence Tisch who assured the network would remain strictly kosher. Viacom owns over 4,000 Blockbuster stores and is involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, video games. Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming through it's Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, Black Entertainment Television, MTV's brainwashing is directed towards kids between the ages of 12 and 24, and is headed by the obscene JEW Mark Rosenthal. AOL-Time Warner-The largest media conglomerate was created when America Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-Time Warner, and Gerald Levin, a JEW, as the CEO. Levin overplayed his hand, and in a May 2002 showdown, the board of AOL-Time Warner fired him. AOL-Time Warner's board replaced both Levin and Case with a Negro, Richard Parsons. Beneath Parsons the Jewish influence and power remains dominant. Warner music is one of the biggest distributors in the world. Warner was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records and it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit hate crimes acts against Whites. Time Warner's publishing division is managed by its editor-in-chief, JEW Norman Pearlstein. He controls 50 magazines including Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and People. Vivendi/Universal- Owned and controlled by another JEWISH media mogul. Edgar Bronfman, Jr. headed Seagram Company, the liquor giant, until recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World JEWISH Congress. Seagram owns Universal Studios. Fox broadcasting/News Corporation- With 2001 revenues of approximately $16 billion. Jew Rupert Murdoch's Fox broadcasting is the fifth largest. Rupert's father Sir Keith Murdoch attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy JEWISH family; Elisabeth Joy Greene. Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact of his JEWISH roots. Murdoch has staffed most key positions with his fellow JEWS: The JEW Sandy Gurshow runs Fox Television Ent. Group; JEW Mitchell Stern heads Fox Television Stations; JEWESS Jane Friedman is chairman of Harper Collins; and JEW Thomas Rothman is chairman of 20th Century Fox Films. Dreamworks SKG- DreamWorks is a strictly Kosher company. Formed in 1994 amid great media hype by gay media JEW David Geffen, JEW Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director JEW Steven Spielberg. Columbia Pictures- Is owned by the Japanese electronics firm Sony. However Sony's Chairman is the JEWESS Amy Pascal. Sony's music division is also headed by the JEW Andrew Lack. Films produced by seven of the firms mentioned above accounted for 94% of the total box-office receipts for the year 2002. NBC/GE- The CEO of General Electric; Jeff Immelt, is surprisingly not a JEW. However his NBC media empire is still very much kosher. The national Broadcasting Company was founded by the Russian JEW immigrant David Sarnoff and ran later by his JEW son Robert Sarnoff. JEW Neal Shapiro is president of NBC News. JEW Jeff Zucker is NBC's entertainment president. JEW David M. Zaslav is president of NBC Cable. After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. Associated Press- The AP sells content to newspapers and other media. Its chairman is The JEW Donald Newhouse. The AP's day-to-day activities are currently under the control of its managing editor the JEW Michael Silverman. The JEWESS Ann Levin is the AP's national news editor. Silverman and Levin are under The JEW Jonathan Wolman, who was promoted to senior vice president of The Associated Press in Nov 2002. Newhouse Media empire- The JEWISH Newhouse family owns 30 daily newspapers, 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country's largest cable networks; some two dozen major magazines. The Company was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, a JEWISH immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his Jewish two sons, Samuel and Donald. New York Times- With a 2002 circulation of 1,194,000 the times have become quite influential. The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J. Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate by a wealthy JEWISH publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-greatgrandson, Arthur Sulzberger, is the paper's current publisher and the chairman of the New York Times. JEW Russell T. Lewis, is president of The NY Times. JEW Martin Nisenholtz, runs their Internet operations. The Sulzberger family also owns through the New York Times Co. 33 other newspapers, ten radio and TV broadcasting stations; and a cable-TV system. Washington Post- The Post, like the NY Times, had a gentile origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins. In June 1933 at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Rich JEWISH financier and was run by his daughter TJEWESS Katherine Meyer Graham, until her death in 2001. She was the principal stockholder, chairman of the board and appointed her son, Donald Graham as the current CEO for the Post. The Jewish Graham family also own Newsweek magazine. Wall Street Journal- sells 1,820,000 copies each weekday and is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 24 other newspapers. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is the Jew Peter R. Kann. New York Daily News- Owned and operated by JEWISH real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. JEW Les Goodstein, is the president and chief operating officer. JEW Zuckerman also publishes U.S. News & World Report. Top Radio Jew- Ultrazionist and Billionaire Norman J. Pattiz, is founder and chairman of Westwood One, the largest radio network in the United States with 7,500 stations. The $3.5 billion-company is also the largest distributor of commercial radio programming. Its news programs include CBS News Radio, Fox News Radio, CBS Market Watch, CNN Radio, and the NBC Radio Network. Pattiz helped pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which eliminated restrictions on how many stations a company can own. Pattiz is also vice chairman of the US-based Israel Policy Forum, has been appointed chairman of the 'Middle East committee' of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The committee represents the propaganda arm of the Middle East Initiative, which seeks to "democratize" the region against its will.In a February radio address in honor of Voice of America's 60th anniversary, Bush singled out Pattiz for his "perseverance and dedication to the project." The 'project' being the production of Arab-language propaganda for two new media outlets: The Al-hurrah satellite television network, and Radio Sawa. Our government has placed a jew in charge of brainwashing the arabs with pro US & pro Israel media outlets. Hollywood Jews and Government Jews... Another Jew, Steve Ballmer, is the CEO of Microsoft. He is also worth about $16.6 billion. Everyone knows of the money machine Microsoft. We can't forget Jewess Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the radio talk show host whose listening audience rivals that of Drug addict Rush Limbaugh. She presents herself as for family values, but strictly from a twisted Jewish point-of-view. Another famous radio Jew is the severely perverted Howard Stern. 60 minutes is severely Jewish. Produced by News Jew Don Hewitt. Lead by news reporter Jew Mike wallace. Jew Al Ortiz Is the vice presdent for CBS news. Even space is not immune to Jewish control. Daniel Goldin, a Jew, has been in control of NASA since 1992, a carry-over from Clinton's administration to Bush's. Goldin uses his influence to launch some satellites free of charge for Israel, while everyone else has to pay. With all that having been said, let's discuss some of the Jews close to George Bush. We have already mentioned Colin Powell and Ari Fleischer. One of Bush's Foreign Policy Advisors, Richard Perle, is a known Jew with a history of sending classified government documents to the Israeli Embassy and also worked for Soltam, an Israeli company which builds weapons. Yet, he is allowed to continue working in our government. A close friend of Perle's is Jewboy Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's Deputy Defense Secretary. This list just goes on. The Jews Robert Satloff and Elliott Abrams are National Security Council Advisors. Dov Zekheim, Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller, reportedly has dual citizenship with Israel. Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon has even closer ties with Israel. He is closely associated with the Zionist Organization of America, and runs a law firm which has only one office - located in Israel. Marc Grossman, a Jew, is Bush's Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs. Richard Haass, Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at Large, is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He likes to promote bombing Iraq, as does Robert Zoellick, another Jew (U.S. Trade Representative). Other Jews include Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger (both pentagon advisors who advocate bombing Iraq). Don't you feel secure knowing that National Security rests in the hands of Jews with close ties Israel? Steve Goldsmith, Senior Advisor to the President, makes frequent trips to Israel. Other Bush Jews include: Mel Sembler - President of the export-Import Bank of the United States; Joshua Bolten - Chief Policy Director; Adam Goldman - White House Special Liaison to the Jewish Community; Joseph Gildenhorn - Bush Campaign's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community (also, former ambassador to Switzerland); Christopher Gersten - Former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is married to Linda Chavez, Labor Secretary; Mark Weinberger - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Samuel Bodman - Deputy Secretary of Commerce; Bonnie Cohen - Under Secretary of State for Management; Ruth Davis - Director of Foreign Service Institute; Lincoln Bloomfield - Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs; Jay Lefkowitz - General Counsel of the Office of Budget and Management; David Frum - White House Speechwriter. ." President Nixon stated,"[People] have to realize that Jews in the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the big companies. And there is a force we have to take into consideration." Additionally, American politicians, for the most part, are controlled by Jewish plutocrats, many of whom reside in Israel, as well. This is why American politicians are hesitant to be critical of Israel. This is not some bizarre "anti-Semitic fantasy," as Jews would like some people to believe. Rather, it is a fact with which America has to admit. Indeed, as much of the Internet has heard by now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon openly gloats about such control. On October 3, 2001, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs noted something rather disturbing that Sharon said on Israeli public radio: "We the Jewish people control America. And the Americans know it." Paul Findley, a congressman from Illinois for 22 years, documented this fact quite well in his book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israels Lobby. If there were no others who would corroborate Findleys findings, it would be easy to discredit him as simply an anti-Semite. However, he cites numerous other politicians who have also pointed out this disturbing matter. Apparently, this is how it works: Jews are allowed to have dual-citizenship between the U.S. and Israel. America gives Israel $4 billion a year that it does not pay back (and this doesnt necessarily include military secrets and hardware, plus occasional bank-bailouts and other matters). The Jews who are dual-citizens take a small portion of this $4 billion and re-invest it in American politics, choosing U.S. politicians who are likely to support Israel. (It is believed that Israel has somewhere around 300 different political action committees working inside of America, led by Jews with dual-citizenship.) Aside from Findleys book, the book Stealth PACs also describes how some of these pro-Israeli groups use seemingly innocuous names to hide their pro-Israel agenda at American taxpayers expense. How much has this unchecked support of Israel cost American taxpayers? The well-respected economist Dr. Thomas Stauffer stated that Americas financial loss due to its support of Israel is about $1.7 trillion in todays dollars, roughly one-third of America's deficit. Numerous political figures have gone on record about this insane support of Israel that some endorse. In February 1957, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles promulgated, "I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews." Likewise, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Brown a question: How can we stop Israel from obtaining from the Congress more foreign aid than any other nation in the world? To this, General Brown responded: When they get tough-minded enough to set down the Jewish influence in this country and break that lobby. It is so strong, you wouldnt believe it. Now, we have the Israelis coming to us for equipment. We say we cant probably get the Congress to support a program like this. And they say, Dont worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress. This is somebody from another country. But they can do it. When some Jews countered with the usual argument that Gen. Brown was merely an anti-Semite, General M.B. Twining, a hero of WWII and the Korean War who was Commander of the U.S. Air Force, reportedly told the San Diego Union: A group of powerful U.S. Jews have grotesquely distorted U.S. foreign policy in blind fanatic support of Israel, and Gen. Brown deserves praise, not criticism, for saying so. As head of our nations armed forces, he sees us--a nation of 200 million people--being dragooned into a disastrous war . . . by a ruthless lobby of Jewish-American extremists single-mindedly bent on enforcing their rule or ruin policy in the Middle East. Admiral Thomas Moorer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff described this alarming pattern as well: "I've never seen a President”I don't care who he is”stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want.... If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Jews openly gloat about their control over America. And it extends beyond Sharon's aforementioned comments, bragging about his control over America. Indeed, one popular Jewish publication even had a caricature of President Bush drawn. It depicted him as a comical wooden puppet, pulled by (Jewish) strings. These are the facts of the Jewish control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few hours in a large library looking into current editions of yearbooks on the radio and television, into directories of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their officers, such as Standard and Poors; and into biographical reference works can easily verify their accuracy. Much can also be verified by just using Google online. The facts of Jewish media control are undeniable. According to 2000 US census figures, Jews make up only 2.5% of the total US population. Yet Jews own and control 98% of all US media. Such a massive takeover by a small minority didn't happen by chance. It was part of a long term Zionist plan to control American by brainwashing the minds of the public. By manipulating the masses who vote for and elect our corrupt politicans. The Jews purpose is to destroy us with race mixing, homosexuality and other "fashionable" genocidial practices. Like a virus the jews destroy a society from inside out, slowly and gradually perverting it with their own special brand of poison. don't sit by and let it happen! George W. Bush - Terrorist in the White House WAR FOR ISRAEL ------------------------------------------------------ THE WAR FOR ISRAEL - (and you thought the oil was for the U.S.). ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- You are looking at the reason for the war against Iraq. This war is being fought for Ariel Sharon and for Israel's strategic benefit! Thats what Israel does. It has its intelligence organization, Mossad, carry out false flag operations and deceives others into attacking their enemies. In short they get others to fight their wars for them. Israel is in the midst of its plan to use the United States military, which it controls, to conquer Iraq and divert Iraqi oil to the Haifa refinery via the Mosul to Haifa pipeline. The U.S. has built airbases at H2 and H3 (which stand for Haifa 2 and Haifa 3) to protect this strategic pipeline. The pipeline is intact, fully operational, and is being used to covertly send oil to Israel. Paid for with the blood of American soldiers that die in Iraq. Iraq is being turned into another Palestine state for Israel. This war was fought in order to secure Israel's future. Israel, being a parasite nation, needed to create an income stream that would continue if funding from the United States should dry up. They have been working on the plan to steal Iraqi oil for years. Read Israel's Blitzkrieg on Middle East Oil by Joe Vialls for more on this. To quote Mr. Vialls article, "... they are already planning to steal 1,825 million barrels of Iraqi oil per annum. Taking a nominal price of US $25.00 per barrel ... the Israeli-Jewish terrorists stand to make a cool US $45,625,000,000.00 each year .... " [Thats over 45 1/2 Billion dollars a year or $125 million each day!!!] Mr. Vialls claims that the 45 billion a year jackpot is more than just a lot of money, it's a matter of survival for Israel. The reshaping of the Middle East by America's military will allow Israel to: (1) Control the strategic oil reserves in this region which will ensure low cost oil to Israel and ensure their economic survival. (2) Ensure Israel is the dominant military force and the sole nuclear equipped military power in the region for many years to come . (3) Neutralize Israel's enemies in the region. (4) Expand borders per "Greater Israel". The Nile forming the border on the West through Egypt, and the Euphrates on the East through Turkey, Syria and Iraq. (5) Allow even further expansion of borders to encompass surrounding countries. Israel has become the 3rd largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling everything from Uzis to PHALCON airborne early warning systems. Defense Ministry figures show Israeli weapons export contracts were worth $4.1 billion in 2002. Only the United States with $13.2 billion and Russia with $4.4 billion sold more weapons that year. Israel's possesses the fourth largest army in the world. Israel is the only nuclear enabled country in the Middle East. Israel has overtaken England to become the worlds 5th largest nuclear power, roughly equivalent to France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Recent reports indicate that Israel has deployed five different nuclear weapons designs. It is estimated to have 2000-5000 conventional nuclear warheads and many micro nuclear devices like the bomb that destroyed the Sari Club in Bali. (These new nuclear devices only emit alpha radiation that is invisible to a standard geiger counter). In addition they have the neutron bombs, (that can kill people and leave the buildings intact) and hydrogen bombs. Hydrogen bombs are currently the most fearsome and intimidating weapon on earth, capable of causing over 60000 times the damage of a nuclear bomb like the one used on Nagasaki. The Hydrogen bomb is so intimidating that most nations vow never to produce it, though it is really not much harder than producing regular nukes. When we are talking WMD, this is the big Kahuna. Israel has the capability to take out every major city in Europe. Israel refuses to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) or to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities by International inspectors. Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions. A further 33 resolutions against Israel has not seen the light of day thanks to the United States vetoing power on the Security Council. Nuclear disarmament must begin with Israel. Until that time, Arab states in the region have an inalienable "right" and "obligation" to develop similar weapons (of mass destruction) to counter this overwhelming threat to their nations and peoples. Since Israel possess such a large nuclear arsenal, they are able to blackmail the United States into supplying them conventional weapons. They have been known to sell those weapons and technologies to other countries, once they are given to them. The Patriot missile, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, the Lavi fighter, based on the F-16, have all been sold to Beijing. Only direct U.S. intervention prevented Israel from selling Beijing AWACS technology. Zionist forces are in control of the United States. When Ariel Sharon said: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael -- it was no idle chatter. He was telling the truth. They have gained control through the Federal Reserve System [Updated Link] controlling the banks. They are also firmly in control in England. Hence the 2 allies will unite to fight a good fight for the greater good of Israel. Just follow the trail of the money! The United States has given Israel over 90 billion dollars in foreign aid. They continue this aid at a time when U.S. schools no longer can afford textbooks. Yet the standard 3 billion dollars of yearly aid goes on. Then there's the 12 billion in loan guarantees. And now Israel is asking for (and received) a 400% increase in aid. Miftah.org estimates the foreign aid to Israel to be closer to 8 billion yearly. I estimate that Israel receives 9.5 billion a year in aid. Here is the break down: Foreign Aid: $3 billion, Loan Guarantees (normally): $2 billion (Note: the U.S. Congress has forgiven ALL loans to Israel in the past), private tax deductible donations: $1 billion, Israeli bonds: $500 million, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which guarantees all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis: $3 billion (The Oil funding is camouflaged in the Defense budget) = Total $9.5 billion. This $9.5 billion of aid is the standard rate. However, 2003 was an exceptionally good year for Israel. AFTER the Israeli army killed Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer, (which by the way was most likely paid for with your U.S. tax dollars), the U.S. rewarded Israel by giving them an additional $9B in loan guarantees, $1B in military aid - [Would Israel have received $20 billion if they had killed 2 American college students?] So last year Israel hit the lottery to the tune of a cool $19.5 billion. Or, put in another way, in 2003, Israel received $53.4 Million dollars a day from the traitors in Congress. Thats a very solid return on the AIPAC contributions that Israel pays out to U.S. Congressmen. This is part of a broader package of up to $75 billion as emergency aid, directly connected to the war on Iraq. This amounts to 2500% increase in aid to support Israel in a war that they have claimed they are not involved in. Who is benefiting from the war on Iraq? Follow the trail of the money! Each year Congress forgives loans made to Israel which costs U.S. Taxpayers more than all the foreign aid handed out. Some sources indicate with all the hidden costs including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve factored in, the figure is more like $3 Trillion dollars !!!) Thomas R. Stauffer does. The summary of Stauffer's research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. See this article for more: The Real Cost Of US Support For Israel. Israel has installed one of, if not the most, sophisticated missile defense systems in the world. They were the first country in the world to use laser's to intercept missiles, at America's expense of course. In 2000 Israel introduced the Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (THEL/ACTD), the world's first high-energy laser weapon system designed for operational use, to shoot down a rocket carrying a live warhead. In contrast, in December 2002 Resident Bush ordered the U.S. military to begin deployment of their own national missile defense system to protect the United States. Israel has launched its own spy satellite in 2002. A professor at the Israeli Technion-Israel Institute of Technology argued that the recent launch of an Israeli satellite means Israel "has established [its] capability to launch, by means of a missile, a payload to any location on the face of the earth." Israel has acquired three Dolphin class diesel submarines in 2002 that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. According to Pentagon and Israeli officials, Israel now has a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time. Now, Germany has agreed to sell Israel another two Dolphin-class submarines. Israel has its own radar warning system and has created a vast Home Front Command to prepare citizens and medical services for potential attacks. U.S. military has plugged Israel into real-time war monitoring in the war on Iraq. Israel and the United States have set up a joint command post next to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv at which Israeli army officers will be able to view real-time pictures of the movements of American war planes over Iraq in the event of a war. In addition, an American early warning system that is hooked directly into U.S. intelligence satellites over Iraq was transferred to Israel a few weeks ago, [February, 2003] giving Israel direct access to information on any Iraqi missile launches at its territory, with no delays and no filtering. This War Is Also About Water - Israel needs new water sources to allow Israeli expansion plans. Iraq is the major source of water in the Middle East. Just as the war in Afghanistan was fought for the Unocal oil pipeline this war is being fought for oil and water pipelines to Israel. Israel is now conducting assassinations of American citizens on American soil under the guise of "fighting terrorism" with the blessings of the US Government. If a member of Congress were to merely question anything about Zionist political influence in Washington they would be committing career suicide. Many feel that Israel blackmails politicians involved in pedophile rings and uses photographs to control their votes. Very high level politicians have been implicated as well as Bushes. In conclusion the evidence that Israel is behind the invasion on Iraq is more than circumstantial. You just need to look at who stands to gain from all this. Those that can't understand why Dubya is so determined to attack Iraq, probably haven't considered that Israel is running the show. If you just look at who stands to gain from Iraqi oil you see the picture but it doesn't seem to be the whole thing. But when you add the dancing Israelis and Senator Graham's statements about foreign governments involvement in 911 and Sharon’s orders on who Bush is to attack next, the whole picture begins to get in focus. For those who feel 'so what if thousands of Iraqis die, as long as America ends up with the oil'. Those people will be disappointed also. Sure, Bush's buddies, the large corporations will get contracts to rebuild Iraq and make huge profits, but the BIG profits will be from Iraqi oil flowing to Israel. The Bush regime has already indicated it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil. US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) engineered by Henry Kissinger, the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. To ensure the security of the Mosul to Haifa pipeline, the U.S. needs to neutralize Syria. Syria is too much of a risk. Israel wants the Mosul to Haifa pipeline to be secure for many years to come. Two US-made ‘democratic’ regimes in the region, one in Baghdad and the other in Damascus, would secure the flow of Iraqi oil to Israel and free the country from its dependence on pricey Russian oil. The entire Middle East will be reshaped in line with these concerns. More Details : http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html Collected by---------- M.S.A. Shobuz ''Israel has occupied Palestine and other Arab lands for decades'' / Israel's Successful Use of the Art of Realpolitik
White House denies Bush God claims
In the month of Ramadaan
12 year old school kid hanged herself for one rupee ( 0.02 $ US Doller )/ 2 cents only
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
-%c2%a6%c2%a4%e2%84%a2%c2%a8%c2%b0%e0%b9%91%db%a9%db%9e%db%a9%e0%b9%91+-+Windows+Live&referrer=){kind=small}
