61 US Soldiers Killed This Week - by Michael Ewens: "November 15, 2004 | At least 40 killed in Fallujah alone | by Michael Ewens
In a flurry of weekend press releases, the Department of Defense named another 26 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. These deaths bring the total killed since Nov. 8 to 61. Such facts may conflict with 'official numbers' released to the unquestioning media. However, in an apparent response to this article, the DoD is now reporting that 38 US troops have died in Fallujah. The discrepancy in numbers may stem from unreported deaths. We will only know after the troops' names are officially released.
The 50-plus killed this week is indicative of a growing insurgency likely to spread to previously peaceful cities. Over twenty of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, Mosul, Abu Gharb, and Babli province (just south of Baghdad). This indicates that the violence is only spreading."
Monday, November 15, 2004
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Behind the Camp David Myth: Palestinian positions ... were compatible with the existence of a Jewish state
Los Angeles Times: Behind the Camp David Myth: "Behind the Camp David Myth
Arafat didn't blindly spurn a generous offer.
By Robert Malley
Robert Malley was President Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs. He now directs the Middle East and North Africa program at the International Crisis Group.
November 12, 2004
It took Yasser Arafat many years to persuade his fellow Palestinians of the wisdom of the two-state solution, and it took longer still to convince Americans and Israelis of the genuineness of his views. Yet it took only two weeks at Camp David in the summer of 2000 to wreck all the progress that had been made and for Arafat to regain the pariah status he once held.
Those talks failed, and in the aftermath a myth was born that has had a lasting and devastating effect: that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the most generous offer possible, but that Arafat summarily turned it down. He did so, the story goes, because he never really believed in the Jewish state's right to exist in the first place and because he had never really hoped to reach a just, comprehensive and lasting peace with Israel. Since 2000, it is this narrative � Camp David as a metaphor for Palestinian rejectionism � that has ravaged the Israeli peace camp, distorted both U.S. and Israeli policy and badly undermined confidence in a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
...
Second, although Camp David undoubtedly was a breakthrough, and although Israel was prepared to concede far more than in the past, the deal nevertheless didn't meet the minimum requirements of any Palestinian leader. ...
A third oft-neglected point about Camp David is that the Palestinian positions, though clearly inconsistent with Israel's, nonetheless were compatible with the existence of a Jewish state: a Palestinian state based on the lines of June 4, 1967; Israeli annexation of limited West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs in exchange for the transfer of an equivalent amount of land from Israel proper; Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and over its holy sites; and implementation of the refugees' right of return in a manner designed to protect Israel's demographic interests. Those stances probably went beyond what the Israeli people could accept. ...
The more difficult question is not why Arafat rebuffed the Camp David ideas but why he failed to embrace the Clinton parameters five months later in December 2000, which came far closer to meeting the Palestinian principles.
By then, however, everything had changed. The intifada was raging, Palestinians were seething and mourning their dead, and many of Arafat's advisors were counseling against the deal. ...
Arafat didn't blindly spurn a generous offer.
By Robert Malley
Robert Malley was President Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs. He now directs the Middle East and North Africa program at the International Crisis Group.
November 12, 2004
It took Yasser Arafat many years to persuade his fellow Palestinians of the wisdom of the two-state solution, and it took longer still to convince Americans and Israelis of the genuineness of his views. Yet it took only two weeks at Camp David in the summer of 2000 to wreck all the progress that had been made and for Arafat to regain the pariah status he once held.
Those talks failed, and in the aftermath a myth was born that has had a lasting and devastating effect: that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the most generous offer possible, but that Arafat summarily turned it down. He did so, the story goes, because he never really believed in the Jewish state's right to exist in the first place and because he had never really hoped to reach a just, comprehensive and lasting peace with Israel. Since 2000, it is this narrative � Camp David as a metaphor for Palestinian rejectionism � that has ravaged the Israeli peace camp, distorted both U.S. and Israeli policy and badly undermined confidence in a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
...
Second, although Camp David undoubtedly was a breakthrough, and although Israel was prepared to concede far more than in the past, the deal nevertheless didn't meet the minimum requirements of any Palestinian leader. ...
A third oft-neglected point about Camp David is that the Palestinian positions, though clearly inconsistent with Israel's, nonetheless were compatible with the existence of a Jewish state: a Palestinian state based on the lines of June 4, 1967; Israeli annexation of limited West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs in exchange for the transfer of an equivalent amount of land from Israel proper; Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and over its holy sites; and implementation of the refugees' right of return in a manner designed to protect Israel's demographic interests. Those stances probably went beyond what the Israeli people could accept. ...
The more difficult question is not why Arafat rebuffed the Camp David ideas but why he failed to embrace the Clinton parameters five months later in December 2000, which came far closer to meeting the Palestinian principles.
By then, however, everything had changed. The intifada was raging, Palestinians were seething and mourning their dead, and many of Arafat's advisors were counseling against the deal. ...
The "completely false conception that Arafat was offered a good deal ": the 97% myth
Arafat and Vanunu: Two Prisoners of War- by Justin Raimondo: "November 12, 2004 | Israel's move against Mordechai Vanunu, the man who exposed their nuclear secrets, couldn't have been timed better | by Justin Raimondo
...
Central to the hateful festivities surrounding Arafat's death is the myth of the missed opportunity, the completely false conception that Arafat was offered a good deal by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Bill Clinton, and, because of a psychological inability to make the transition from revolutionary leader to "statesman," failed to take it while the taking was good. This is utter balderdash, as a simple glance at a map of what the Palestinians were offered – here and here – graphically reveals. Alexander Cockburn put it well:
"Bill Clinton has always been one for the phony reconciliation, the win-win solution, the photo-op deal. The defining moment of his diplomacy was the 'handshake' between Rabin and Arafat, offered to the world as the insignia of a decent settlement brokered by America."
But it was nothing of the sort, as Cockburn notes. The Palestinian "nation" was to be a series of disconnected bantustans, surrounded entirely by Israeli military posts and "settlements" populated by ultra-Zionist fanatics. All water, roads, communications, and other vital command posts of this "independent" entity would be controlled by the Israelis. Some independence!
As Michael C. Desch wrote in The American Conservative:
"In the Palestinians' view, they had surrendered 78 percent of historic Palestine to Israel when they recognized Israel as a sovereign state at Oslo in 1993; in return, they expected that they would get the remaining 22 percent (the West Bank and Gaza) as part of the final agreement. Yet the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands continued to deepen and expand after Oslo and the Israeli government began to interfere ever more intrusively in the lives of ordinary Palestinians.
If Palestinians were black, instead of a rich nut-brown, the UN would have imposed strict sanctions long ago, and in the U.S. the Israeli government would be as reviled as the white South African or Rhodesian regimes that lorded it over their native African majorities. As it is, Israeli propaganda seeks to depict any and all Arabs, and practically all Muslims, as terrorists, a definition that suits Osama bin Laden just fine. The Israelis have been particularly eager to smash all manifestations of secular Arab militance, in a perfect complement to bin Laden working the other side of the street.
Arafat was no saint, but then the only saints in that part of the world are already buried in their graves. It's a rough neighborhood, and by local standards the PLO leader was no better or worse than most of his Israeli counterparts, whose crimes fall in the category of state terrorism as opposed to the more freelance variety practiced by the other side. After all, the Israeli state was founded by groups that employed terrorism as a tactic, who bombed hotels full of innocent civilians, massacred Arab villagers, and drove the remaining Palestinians off the land. These are the very same people, by the way, who claim that they are a bulwark against terrorism – even as they carry out a brutal policy of state terrorism in the sight of the whole world.
...
...
Central to the hateful festivities surrounding Arafat's death is the myth of the missed opportunity, the completely false conception that Arafat was offered a good deal by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Bill Clinton, and, because of a psychological inability to make the transition from revolutionary leader to "statesman," failed to take it while the taking was good. This is utter balderdash, as a simple glance at a map of what the Palestinians were offered – here and here – graphically reveals. Alexander Cockburn put it well:
"Bill Clinton has always been one for the phony reconciliation, the win-win solution, the photo-op deal. The defining moment of his diplomacy was the 'handshake' between Rabin and Arafat, offered to the world as the insignia of a decent settlement brokered by America."
But it was nothing of the sort, as Cockburn notes. The Palestinian "nation" was to be a series of disconnected bantustans, surrounded entirely by Israeli military posts and "settlements" populated by ultra-Zionist fanatics. All water, roads, communications, and other vital command posts of this "independent" entity would be controlled by the Israelis. Some independence!
As Michael C. Desch wrote in The American Conservative:
"In the Palestinians' view, they had surrendered 78 percent of historic Palestine to Israel when they recognized Israel as a sovereign state at Oslo in 1993; in return, they expected that they would get the remaining 22 percent (the West Bank and Gaza) as part of the final agreement. Yet the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands continued to deepen and expand after Oslo and the Israeli government began to interfere ever more intrusively in the lives of ordinary Palestinians.
If Palestinians were black, instead of a rich nut-brown, the UN would have imposed strict sanctions long ago, and in the U.S. the Israeli government would be as reviled as the white South African or Rhodesian regimes that lorded it over their native African majorities. As it is, Israeli propaganda seeks to depict any and all Arabs, and practically all Muslims, as terrorists, a definition that suits Osama bin Laden just fine. The Israelis have been particularly eager to smash all manifestations of secular Arab militance, in a perfect complement to bin Laden working the other side of the street.
Arafat was no saint, but then the only saints in that part of the world are already buried in their graves. It's a rough neighborhood, and by local standards the PLO leader was no better or worse than most of his Israeli counterparts, whose crimes fall in the category of state terrorism as opposed to the more freelance variety practiced by the other side. After all, the Israeli state was founded by groups that employed terrorism as a tactic, who bombed hotels full of innocent civilians, massacred Arab villagers, and drove the remaining Palestinians off the land. These are the very same people, by the way, who claim that they are a bulwark against terrorism – even as they carry out a brutal policy of state terrorism in the sight of the whole world.
...
Friday, November 12, 2004
U.N. Report Slams Use of Torture to Beat Terror
U.N. Report Slams Use of Torture to Beat Terror: "November 12, 2004 by the Inter Press Service | by Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS - No country can justify torture, the humiliation of prisoners or violation of international conventions in the guise of fighting terrorism, says a U.N. report released here.
The 19-page study, which is likely to go before the current session of the U.N. General Assembly in December, does not identify the United States by name but catalogues the widely publicized torture and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. troops waging the so-called ”war on terrorism.”
...
On Wednesday, U.S. President George W Bush named White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general to succeed John Ashcroft, who announced his resignation last week.
In a now-infamous memo to the White House in January 2002, Gonzales argued that captured members of the former ruling Taliban regime in Afghanistan were not protected under the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). The United States has signed the Geneva Conventions.
...
Gonzales has also described international conventions governing prisoners of war, including the Geneva Conventions, as ''obsolete.''
According to the author of the 19-page U.N. report, 'Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment', ''The condoning of torture is, per se, a violation of the prohibition of torture.”
UNITED NATIONS - No country can justify torture, the humiliation of prisoners or violation of international conventions in the guise of fighting terrorism, says a U.N. report released here.
The 19-page study, which is likely to go before the current session of the U.N. General Assembly in December, does not identify the United States by name but catalogues the widely publicized torture and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. troops waging the so-called ”war on terrorism.”
...
On Wednesday, U.S. President George W Bush named White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general to succeed John Ashcroft, who announced his resignation last week.
In a now-infamous memo to the White House in January 2002, Gonzales argued that captured members of the former ruling Taliban regime in Afghanistan were not protected under the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). The United States has signed the Geneva Conventions.
...
Gonzales has also described international conventions governing prisoners of war, including the Geneva Conventions, as ''obsolete.''
According to the author of the 19-page U.N. report, 'Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment', ''The condoning of torture is, per se, a violation of the prohibition of torture.”
Tests for Mideast and World: the road to Baghdad passes through Jerusalem
The New York Times > International > Middle East > News Analysis: After Death, Tests for Mideast and World: "By STEVEN ERLANGER | Published: November 12, 2004
RAMALLAH, West Bank, Nov. 11 - Yasir Arafat was both the symbol of the Palestinians' hope for a viable, independent state and the prime obstacle to its realization.
His death early Thursday morning presents an enormous set of challenges to his own people, to the Israelis, to a re-elected American president and to the world at large.
It is a test, first of all, for the Palestinians themselves, to move from a revolutionary ethos of victimhood and military confrontation with Israel to a more responsible and legitimate government, able to care for its people and to negotiate for them.
It is a test for Israel and its prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to move beyond the dismissive response that there is 'no negotiating partner' and to work to help the emerging Palestinian leadership consolidate and maintain authority and control.
And it is a test for President Bush, already being pressed in public by his best ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, to push Mr. Sharon hard for revived negotiations with the Palestinians.
As Mr. Blair, the Europeans and Arab states like Egypt constantly point out, the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate feeds Muslim anger and despair, giving a larger rationale to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and to the insurgency in Iraq.
Before the Iraq war, Mr. Bush had been told that "the road to Jerusalem passed through Baghdad," but with Iraq today a magnet for anti-Western fervor, it is increasingly believed in the region that the formula is the other way around. ...
RAMALLAH, West Bank, Nov. 11 - Yasir Arafat was both the symbol of the Palestinians' hope for a viable, independent state and the prime obstacle to its realization.
His death early Thursday morning presents an enormous set of challenges to his own people, to the Israelis, to a re-elected American president and to the world at large.
It is a test, first of all, for the Palestinians themselves, to move from a revolutionary ethos of victimhood and military confrontation with Israel to a more responsible and legitimate government, able to care for its people and to negotiate for them.
It is a test for Israel and its prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to move beyond the dismissive response that there is 'no negotiating partner' and to work to help the emerging Palestinian leadership consolidate and maintain authority and control.
And it is a test for President Bush, already being pressed in public by his best ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, to push Mr. Sharon hard for revived negotiations with the Palestinians.
As Mr. Blair, the Europeans and Arab states like Egypt constantly point out, the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate feeds Muslim anger and despair, giving a larger rationale to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and to the insurgency in Iraq.
Before the Iraq war, Mr. Bush had been told that "the road to Jerusalem passed through Baghdad," but with Iraq today a magnet for anti-Western fervor, it is increasingly believed in the region that the formula is the other way around. ...
Bush and Blair See 'New Opportunity' for Mideast Peace
The New York Times > AP > National > Bush and Blair See 'New Opportunity' for Mideast Peace: "By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Published: November 12, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Friday the death of Yasser Arafat provides ``a great chance to establish a Palestinian state'' and a broader Middle East peace.
At a joint White House news conference, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged their support for a fresh stab at Israeli-Palestinians peace negotiations.
``We'll hold their feet to the fire to make sure that democracy prevails,'' Bush said.
``We're going to work flat out to deliver this,'' Blair said.
...
While the president coupled his call for a Palestinian state with his unwavering support of Israeli security, Blair stressed the need to bolster Palestinians.
``If we want a viable Palestinian state, we want to make sure the political, the economic and the security infrastructure of that state is shaped and comes into being,'' the British prime minister said.
``We've got the chance over the next few months, with the election of a new Palestinian president, to put the first marker down,'' Blair said.
Bush didn't commit to a Mideast conference or sending a U.S. envoy to the region -- two items sought by Europeans. But he did talk more optimistically than usual about the prospects for a Palestinian state.
``I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state,'' Bush said. ``I believe it is in the interests of the world that such a truly free state develop. I know it is in the interest of the Palestinian people.''
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Friday the death of Yasser Arafat provides ``a great chance to establish a Palestinian state'' and a broader Middle East peace.
At a joint White House news conference, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged their support for a fresh stab at Israeli-Palestinians peace negotiations.
``We'll hold their feet to the fire to make sure that democracy prevails,'' Bush said.
``We're going to work flat out to deliver this,'' Blair said.
...
While the president coupled his call for a Palestinian state with his unwavering support of Israeli security, Blair stressed the need to bolster Palestinians.
``If we want a viable Palestinian state, we want to make sure the political, the economic and the security infrastructure of that state is shaped and comes into being,'' the British prime minister said.
``We've got the chance over the next few months, with the election of a new Palestinian president, to put the first marker down,'' Blair said.
Bush didn't commit to a Mideast conference or sending a U.S. envoy to the region -- two items sought by Europeans. But he did talk more optimistically than usual about the prospects for a Palestinian state.
``I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state,'' Bush said. ``I believe it is in the interests of the world that such a truly free state develop. I know it is in the interest of the Palestinian people.''
A Middle East Opening (washingtonpost.com)
A Middle East Opening (washingtonpost.com): "By Brent Scowcroft | Friday, November 12, 2004; Page A25
...
Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran and terrorism are parts of a whole and can only be satisfactorily engaged as such. To cut through this Gordian knot will require not only a new approach but the deep, sustained commitment of the United States and a significant investment of the president's attention.
...
This essential step in Iraq needs to be accompanied by a U.S. undertaking to revitalize the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat has passed from the scene. His death represents a sea change in the Palestinian situation and, as the president has remarked, "an opening for peace." Both the United States and Israel have refused to deal with Arafat. The United States must seize this unique opportunity to make a decisive move.
The president should add substance to his commitment to an independent Palestinian state. It must include steps to provide security to Israel and to give the Palestinians the ability and means to construct a viable political entity free from the crushing presence of Israeli troops. The United States should insist that Israel stop construction of its wall on the West Bank and mirror its withdrawal from Gaza with the evacuation of the West Bank. In return, the wall and Israeli troops would be replaced by an international force, principally European or perhaps NATO troops.
The Palestinians should be pressed to take urgent measures to replace Arafat with political leadership that is both willing and able to undertake responsible negotiations and deliver on its commitments. Arab friends, notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco, should provide vital guidance, encouragement and support.
The "road map" plan of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations should be revived and fortified by the actions I've described and vigorously pushed by its sponsors to final settlement. The outlines of such a settlement have, by the otherwise unfortunate stagnation of the process, become much less contested. A unified Jerusalem would serve as capital to both peoples. While the "right of return" could be left as a principle, the reality is that most Palestinian refugees will remain outside Israel, just as most Jewish settlers will return to Israel. A donor pool may need to be organized to provide compensation for both groups. [1/10th of what that spent on Iraq shold do nicely!.ed.] Border rectifications would be necessary to compensate for the settlement solution and would complete the package.
Substantial, visible progress on the Palestinian issue would significantly improve the atmosphere in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, ....
...
Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran and terrorism are parts of a whole and can only be satisfactorily engaged as such. To cut through this Gordian knot will require not only a new approach but the deep, sustained commitment of the United States and a significant investment of the president's attention.
...
This essential step in Iraq needs to be accompanied by a U.S. undertaking to revitalize the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat has passed from the scene. His death represents a sea change in the Palestinian situation and, as the president has remarked, "an opening for peace." Both the United States and Israel have refused to deal with Arafat. The United States must seize this unique opportunity to make a decisive move.
The president should add substance to his commitment to an independent Palestinian state. It must include steps to provide security to Israel and to give the Palestinians the ability and means to construct a viable political entity free from the crushing presence of Israeli troops. The United States should insist that Israel stop construction of its wall on the West Bank and mirror its withdrawal from Gaza with the evacuation of the West Bank. In return, the wall and Israeli troops would be replaced by an international force, principally European or perhaps NATO troops.
The Palestinians should be pressed to take urgent measures to replace Arafat with political leadership that is both willing and able to undertake responsible negotiations and deliver on its commitments. Arab friends, notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco, should provide vital guidance, encouragement and support.
The "road map" plan of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations should be revived and fortified by the actions I've described and vigorously pushed by its sponsors to final settlement. The outlines of such a settlement have, by the otherwise unfortunate stagnation of the process, become much less contested. A unified Jerusalem would serve as capital to both peoples. While the "right of return" could be left as a principle, the reality is that most Palestinian refugees will remain outside Israel, just as most Jewish settlers will return to Israel. A donor pool may need to be organized to provide compensation for both groups. [1/10th of what that spent on Iraq shold do nicely!.ed.] Border rectifications would be necessary to compensate for the settlement solution and would complete the package.
Substantial, visible progress on the Palestinian issue would significantly improve the atmosphere in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, ....
Falluja a 'Big Disaster,' Aid Needed - Red Crescent
Excite News: "Falluja a 'Big Disaster,' Aid Needed - Red Crescent | Nov 12, 7:37 AM (ET) | By Omar Anwar
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Aid agencies called on U.S. forces and the Iraqi government to allow them to deliver food, medicine and water to Falluja on Friday and said four days of intense fighting had turned the city into a 'big disaster.'
The Iraqi Red Crescent Society, which receives support from foreign agencies including the Red Cross and UNICEF, said it had asked U.S. forces and Iraq's interim government to let them deliver relief goods to Falluja and establish medics there.
But it said it had received no reply."
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Aid agencies called on U.S. forces and the Iraqi government to allow them to deliver food, medicine and water to Falluja on Friday and said four days of intense fighting had turned the city into a 'big disaster.'
The Iraqi Red Crescent Society, which receives support from foreign agencies including the Red Cross and UNICEF, said it had asked U.S. forces and Iraq's interim government to let them deliver relief goods to Falluja and establish medics there.
But it said it had received no reply."
Friday, October 08, 2004
War crimes: US F-16 take out people on street: never asked ir armed or posing a threat
News: "Take them out, dude: pilots toast hit on Iraqi 'civilians' | By Andrew Buncombe in Washington | 06 October 2004
The Pentagon said yesterday it was investigating cockpit video footage that shows American pilots attacking and killing a group of apparently unarmed Iraqi civilians.
The 30-second clip shows the pilot targeting the group of people in a street in the city of Fallujah and asking his mission controllers whether he should 'take them out'. He is told to do so and, shortly afterwards, the footage shows a huge explosion where the people were. A second voice can be heard on the clip saying: 'Oh, dude.'
The existence of the video, taken last April inside the cockpit of a US F-16 fighter has been known for some time, though last night's broadcast by Channel 4 News is believed to be the first time a mainstream broadcaster has shown the footage.
At no point during the exchange between the pilot and controllers does anyone ask whether the Iraqis are armed or posing a threat. Critics say it proves war crimes are being committed. "
The Pentagon said yesterday it was investigating cockpit video footage that shows American pilots attacking and killing a group of apparently unarmed Iraqi civilians.
The 30-second clip shows the pilot targeting the group of people in a street in the city of Fallujah and asking his mission controllers whether he should 'take them out'. He is told to do so and, shortly afterwards, the footage shows a huge explosion where the people were. A second voice can be heard on the clip saying: 'Oh, dude.'
The existence of the video, taken last April inside the cockpit of a US F-16 fighter has been known for some time, though last night's broadcast by Channel 4 News is believed to be the first time a mainstream broadcaster has shown the footage.
At no point during the exchange between the pilot and controllers does anyone ask whether the Iraqis are armed or posing a threat. Critics say it proves war crimes are being committed. "
Falluja: US precision strike: 11 Iraqi dead, 17 wounde [... 2nd precsision strike against a wedding party]
Reuters AlertNet - U.S. strike kills 11 at wedding in Iraq's Falluja: "08 Oct 2004 04:47:20 GMT | Reuters | By Fadel al-Badrani
FALLUJA, Iraq, Oct 8 (Reuters) - A U.S. air strike on the rebel-held city of Falluja in western Iraq killed 11 people and wounded 17 at a wedding party, with women and children among the casualties, a hospital doctor said on Friday.
Rafah al-Hayat said the U.S. raid, the latest of several which the U.S. military has staged against targets it says are used by foreign militants in Falluja, occurred at about midnight (2100 GMT) on Thursday.
The U.S. military said the 'precision strike' had hit a safe-house being used by the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at 1:15 a.m. on Friday."
FALLUJA, Iraq, Oct 8 (Reuters) - A U.S. air strike on the rebel-held city of Falluja in western Iraq killed 11 people and wounded 17 at a wedding party, with women and children among the casualties, a hospital doctor said on Friday.
Rafah al-Hayat said the U.S. raid, the latest of several which the U.S. military has staged against targets it says are used by foreign militants in Falluja, occurred at about midnight (2100 GMT) on Thursday.
The U.S. military said the 'precision strike' had hit a safe-house being used by the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at 1:15 a.m. on Friday."
Monday, October 04, 2004
This is a Massacre, Not a War in Iraq
This is a Massacre, Not a War in Iraq: "Sam Hamod
10/04/04 'ICH' -- This is a massacre, not a war in Iraq. The U.S. bombing Samarra, Fallujah, Baghdad and other cities, killing hundreds of civilians and calling them terrorists is like the massacres of the Native Americans during America's push westward.
In this case, it has to do with America's push eastward.
What is also troubling is that no major media outlet, no major politician--none are callig this what it is, an immoral, unmitigated killing of hundreds of Iraqi civilians every week, a massacre.
Also, those who are experts in Arabic have claimed for months that the man alleged to be Zarqawi is not really Zarqawi because he does not have the real Zarqawi's Jordanian accent. But, the American military, we are positive by now, has created this mythical Zarqawi to allow it to mercilessly attack Fallujah ... but our country, America, is immoral and cowardly, every day attacking Fallujah by F16, Apache and long range cannon fire. In the process, killing hundreds of civilians, but as in the Viet Nam war, saying, "It's just collateral damage and we are not responsible for that."
...
America may win some battles, but it losing the larger war.
The entire world is condemning our behavior in Iraq as illegal and immoral. What is coming is the long term hatred of America by the majority of Muslims in the world, and some will become combatants in time--not necessarily in Iraq, but in their own countries. Bush and his massacre of Muslims is sowing anger, hatred, desire for revenge--in time, America will reap a whirlwind that the ignorant GW Bush has sown.
Make no mistake about it.
America has played its last cards as a moral world leader.
Our moral arguments now are laughable to the rest of the world.
...
Let's call it what it is in Iraq and Palestine, massacres, not wars. Somehow, it is as if Bush and Sharon are joined together at the hip and in their immoral hearts and minds.
Both are guilty of war crimes. We knew this about Sharon by recalling his infamous invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s; but we didn't know how much Bush would follow his lead and take America down with him.
Just remember this one line, "This is a massacre, not a war."
The Iraqis have no planes, helicopters or tanks; the Palestinians have no planes, helicopters or tanks; but America does and uses them indiscriminately, as does Israel. America should take a cue from the resistance to Israel, some day it will come here, when the people in the Muslim and Arab worlds have had enough and decide to strike back.
Woe unto us for allowing the madman Bush to kill people in Iraq, Afghanistan and by proxy, in Palestine. Some day, as Malcolm X prophesied, "The chickens will come home to roost."
10/04/04 'ICH' -- This is a massacre, not a war in Iraq. The U.S. bombing Samarra, Fallujah, Baghdad and other cities, killing hundreds of civilians and calling them terrorists is like the massacres of the Native Americans during America's push westward.
In this case, it has to do with America's push eastward.
What is also troubling is that no major media outlet, no major politician--none are callig this what it is, an immoral, unmitigated killing of hundreds of Iraqi civilians every week, a massacre.
Also, those who are experts in Arabic have claimed for months that the man alleged to be Zarqawi is not really Zarqawi because he does not have the real Zarqawi's Jordanian accent. But, the American military, we are positive by now, has created this mythical Zarqawi to allow it to mercilessly attack Fallujah ... but our country, America, is immoral and cowardly, every day attacking Fallujah by F16, Apache and long range cannon fire. In the process, killing hundreds of civilians, but as in the Viet Nam war, saying, "It's just collateral damage and we are not responsible for that."
...
America may win some battles, but it losing the larger war.
The entire world is condemning our behavior in Iraq as illegal and immoral. What is coming is the long term hatred of America by the majority of Muslims in the world, and some will become combatants in time--not necessarily in Iraq, but in their own countries. Bush and his massacre of Muslims is sowing anger, hatred, desire for revenge--in time, America will reap a whirlwind that the ignorant GW Bush has sown.
Make no mistake about it.
America has played its last cards as a moral world leader.
Our moral arguments now are laughable to the rest of the world.
...
Let's call it what it is in Iraq and Palestine, massacres, not wars. Somehow, it is as if Bush and Sharon are joined together at the hip and in their immoral hearts and minds.
Both are guilty of war crimes. We knew this about Sharon by recalling his infamous invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s; but we didn't know how much Bush would follow his lead and take America down with him.
Just remember this one line, "This is a massacre, not a war."
The Iraqis have no planes, helicopters or tanks; the Palestinians have no planes, helicopters or tanks; but America does and uses them indiscriminately, as does Israel. America should take a cue from the resistance to Israel, some day it will come here, when the people in the Muslim and Arab worlds have had enough and decide to strike back.
Woe unto us for allowing the madman Bush to kill people in Iraq, Afghanistan and by proxy, in Palestine. Some day, as Malcolm X prophesied, "The chickens will come home to roost."
Israeli offensive, code-named 'Days of Reckoning,' : 2 Israeli children dead, 83 Pal, incl 20 children, 350 wounded
International News Article | Reuters.com: "Arab Nations at UN Demand Israel Stop Gaza Attacks | Mon Oct 4, 2004 06:40 PM ET | By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Arab nations want the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding Israel stop a major offensive in the Gaza Strip, but the United States raised objections at an emergency meeting on Monday.
Algerian U.N. Ambassador Abdalla Baali, the only Arab member of the council, said 'taking into account the urgency of the situation' that resulted in at least 63 Palestinian deaths, he would like a vote on Tuesday.
'The Palestinian people are exposed to a virtual war of extermination,' Baali, who called the meeting, told the council. 'The unfettered use of brutal force is terrifying.'
Israel launched the offensive, code-named 'Days of Reckoning,' after a Palestinian rocket strike killed two children in the southern town of Sderot on Wednesday.
...
Palestinian U.N. observer Nasser al-Kidwa said his leadership condemned the "rudimentary" Qassam rocket attacks by Palestinians and especially the killing of Israeli children.
But he contended Israel over the last week had killed 83 people, including 20 children, wounded more than 350 others and demolished homes, using 2,000 soldiers, 100 tanks and a "massive use of helicopter gunships."
"Israel persists in committing war crimes and acts of state terrorism against the Palestinian people," al-Kidwa said. "There is no justification for this Israeli hysteria, for this widespread killings and deliberate destruction."
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Arab nations want the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding Israel stop a major offensive in the Gaza Strip, but the United States raised objections at an emergency meeting on Monday.
Algerian U.N. Ambassador Abdalla Baali, the only Arab member of the council, said 'taking into account the urgency of the situation' that resulted in at least 63 Palestinian deaths, he would like a vote on Tuesday.
'The Palestinian people are exposed to a virtual war of extermination,' Baali, who called the meeting, told the council. 'The unfettered use of brutal force is terrifying.'
Israel launched the offensive, code-named 'Days of Reckoning,' after a Palestinian rocket strike killed two children in the southern town of Sderot on Wednesday.
...
Palestinian U.N. observer Nasser al-Kidwa said his leadership condemned the "rudimentary" Qassam rocket attacks by Palestinians and especially the killing of Israeli children.
But he contended Israel over the last week had killed 83 people, including 20 children, wounded more than 350 others and demolished homes, using 2,000 soldiers, 100 tanks and a "massive use of helicopter gunships."
"Israel persists in committing war crimes and acts of state terrorism against the Palestinian people," al-Kidwa said. "There is no justification for this Israeli hysteria, for this widespread killings and deliberate destruction."
Translating Iraq Statistics: Austin Tx would have 25 explosions in one month!
The Human Toll Behind the Iraq Statistics: " October 4, 2004 by the Austin American-Statesman (Texas) | by Thomas G. Palaima
What do war statistics mean to us?
Imagine how Americans would feel if they were exposed to the same rate of insurgent attacks that are now occurring in Iraq. Six of the Iraqi provinces that have been declared safe have had four or more attacks per 100,000 people in the last month.
Let's say that here in Austin during the month of September, 25 explosions and killings and maimings took place in our neighborhoods. Imagine you knew that in larger cities such as Houston and Dallas the number of attacks had reached upward of 300 all the way to a 1,000, and that authorities showed no signs of being able to stop them. "
What do war statistics mean to us?
Imagine how Americans would feel if they were exposed to the same rate of insurgent attacks that are now occurring in Iraq. Six of the Iraqi provinces that have been declared safe have had four or more attacks per 100,000 people in the last month.
Let's say that here in Austin during the month of September, 25 explosions and killings and maimings took place in our neighborhoods. Imagine you knew that in larger cities such as Houston and Dallas the number of attacks had reached upward of 300 all the way to a 1,000, and that authorities showed no signs of being able to stop them. "
U.S. Policies Stir More Fear Than Confidence
U.S. Policies Stir More Fear Than Confidence: "October 3, 2004 | By Jeffrey Fleishman, Times Staff Writer
...
One of the sharpest differences between the U.S. and its longtime allies is over the issue of when to use force. A June poll conducted in part by the German Marshall Fund of the United States found that 54% of the Americans surveyed, compared with 28% of the Europeans, believed that military strength would ensure peace. Among Europeans, 73% said the war in Iraq had increased the threat of terrorism.
The disparity represents two dynamics: The world has yet to understand how Sept. 11, 2001, jolted America's sense of security, and the U.S. has underestimated how much international credibility it sacrificed in the Iraq war.
Analysts suggest that America's foreign policy wouldn't significantly change if Sen. John F. Kerry defeats President Bush in November. The division between the men, as seen by much of the world, comes down to style and personality.
...
... The survey also found that on average, 58% of respondents in those countries said the Bush administration made them feel worse about the U.S. versus 19% who said the president's policies made them feel better.
...
"I believe the U.S. poses a greater risk to Egypt and the Islamic world than terrorism," said Tarek Refaat, a software engineer from Cairo. "If we have to have a global policeman, it should be the United Nations, not the U.S. What good does America do for me as a global policeman? I might need this global policeman to protect me if Egypt is attacked by Israel. And you think America will rush to protect Egypt from the Israelis, their strongest allies?"
Galina Babayan, a Moscow mathematics professor, offered this assessment: "It would be more appropriate to compare the U.S. not with a global policeman, but with an ill-natured teenager sent back to the first grade. He is bigger and stronger than anybody else. He bullies everyone around him. But he is slow on the uptake."
...
Wang Jisi, a high-ranking Chinese Communist Party official, said the American people don't comprehend the world. "They don't travel, and they don't talk to foreigners…. And they don't read any foreign-language materials, so it is not very difficult for people to deceive them, to give them some propaganda [to] inflame ideological and nationalist feelings."
...
"The U.S. can't be the world policeman anymore," said Erika Thiel, standing with her son, Juergen, remembering when U.S. boots echoed through the streets. "Muslims don't want to be watched over, and sovereign nations want to be independent from the U.S. shadow."
...
One of the sharpest differences between the U.S. and its longtime allies is over the issue of when to use force. A June poll conducted in part by the German Marshall Fund of the United States found that 54% of the Americans surveyed, compared with 28% of the Europeans, believed that military strength would ensure peace. Among Europeans, 73% said the war in Iraq had increased the threat of terrorism.
The disparity represents two dynamics: The world has yet to understand how Sept. 11, 2001, jolted America's sense of security, and the U.S. has underestimated how much international credibility it sacrificed in the Iraq war.
Analysts suggest that America's foreign policy wouldn't significantly change if Sen. John F. Kerry defeats President Bush in November. The division between the men, as seen by much of the world, comes down to style and personality.
...
... The survey also found that on average, 58% of respondents in those countries said the Bush administration made them feel worse about the U.S. versus 19% who said the president's policies made them feel better.
...
"I believe the U.S. poses a greater risk to Egypt and the Islamic world than terrorism," said Tarek Refaat, a software engineer from Cairo. "If we have to have a global policeman, it should be the United Nations, not the U.S. What good does America do for me as a global policeman? I might need this global policeman to protect me if Egypt is attacked by Israel. And you think America will rush to protect Egypt from the Israelis, their strongest allies?"
Galina Babayan, a Moscow mathematics professor, offered this assessment: "It would be more appropriate to compare the U.S. not with a global policeman, but with an ill-natured teenager sent back to the first grade. He is bigger and stronger than anybody else. He bullies everyone around him. But he is slow on the uptake."
...
Wang Jisi, a high-ranking Chinese Communist Party official, said the American people don't comprehend the world. "They don't travel, and they don't talk to foreigners…. And they don't read any foreign-language materials, so it is not very difficult for people to deceive them, to give them some propaganda [to] inflame ideological and nationalist feelings."
...
"The U.S. can't be the world policeman anymore," said Erika Thiel, standing with her son, Juergen, remembering when U.S. boots echoed through the streets. "Muslims don't want to be watched over, and sovereign nations want to be independent from the U.S. shadow."
Pat Robertson Sunday praised Israel as part of God's plan : include Israeli-controlled land in a Palestinian state are part of "Satan's plan."
Haaretz - Israel News: "04/10/2004 22:44 | Robertson: If Bush 'touches' Jerusalem, we'll form 3rd party | By Daphna Berman, Haaretz correspondent, and agencies
Influential American evangelist Pat Robertson said Monday that Evangelical Christians feel so deeply about Jerusalem, that if President George W. Bush were to 'touch' Jerusalem, Evangelicals would abandon their traditional Republican leanings and form a third party.
Evangelical Christians - estimated at tens of millions of Americans - overwhelmingly support Bush for his pro-Israel policies, Robertson told a Jerusalem news conference Monday.
But if Bush shifted his position toward support for Jerusalem as a capital for both Israel and a Palestinian state, his Evangelical backing would disappear, Robertson indicated.
"The President has backed away from [the road map], but if he were to touch Jerusalem, he'd lose all Evangelical support," Robertson said. "Evangelicals would form a third party" because, though people "don't know about" Gaza, Jerusalem is an entirely different matter.
...
Robertson urged that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) be abolished, given what he called the organization's active role in the "perpetuation" of the Palestinian refugee problem. He warned that a Palestinian state would become "a constant source of irritation" that would "endanger the territorial integrity" of Israel.
"A Palestinian state with full sovereignty would be a launching ground for various types of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction," the former presidential candidate said.
...
"I see the rise of Islam to destroy Israel and take the land from the Jews and give East Jerusalem to [Palestinian Authority Chairman] Yasser Arafat. I see that as Satan's plan to prevent the return of Jesus Christ the Lord," said Robertson, a Christian broadcaster.
In two Jerusalem appearances, Robertson Sunday praised Israel as part of God's plan and criticized Arab countries and some Muslims, saying their hopes to include Israeli-controlled land in a Palestinian state are part of "Satan's plan."
Influential American evangelist Pat Robertson said Monday that Evangelical Christians feel so deeply about Jerusalem, that if President George W. Bush were to 'touch' Jerusalem, Evangelicals would abandon their traditional Republican leanings and form a third party.
Evangelical Christians - estimated at tens of millions of Americans - overwhelmingly support Bush for his pro-Israel policies, Robertson told a Jerusalem news conference Monday.
But if Bush shifted his position toward support for Jerusalem as a capital for both Israel and a Palestinian state, his Evangelical backing would disappear, Robertson indicated.
"The President has backed away from [the road map], but if he were to touch Jerusalem, he'd lose all Evangelical support," Robertson said. "Evangelicals would form a third party" because, though people "don't know about" Gaza, Jerusalem is an entirely different matter.
...
Robertson urged that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) be abolished, given what he called the organization's active role in the "perpetuation" of the Palestinian refugee problem. He warned that a Palestinian state would become "a constant source of irritation" that would "endanger the territorial integrity" of Israel.
"A Palestinian state with full sovereignty would be a launching ground for various types of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction," the former presidential candidate said.
...
"I see the rise of Islam to destroy Israel and take the land from the Jews and give East Jerusalem to [Palestinian Authority Chairman] Yasser Arafat. I see that as Satan's plan to prevent the return of Jesus Christ the Lord," said Robertson, a Christian broadcaster.
In two Jerusalem appearances, Robertson Sunday praised Israel as part of God's plan and criticized Arab countries and some Muslims, saying their hopes to include Israeli-controlled land in a Palestinian state are part of "Satan's plan."
September: 80 US dead, 2nd-Deadliest 2004 Month in Iraq
Yahoo! News - Sept. Is 2nd-Deadliest 2004 Month in Iraq: "Mon Oct 4, 1:15 PM ET Middle East - AP | By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON - September was the second-deadliest month of the year for U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites) and brought to nearly 500 the number who have died since the insurgency escalated in late March.
The Pentagon (news - web sites) announced Sunday evening that two soldiers died late last week of injuries suffered earlier in the month, and another was killed Sept. 30 by a roadside bomb. That brought the month's death toll to 80, up from 65 in August and equal to the 80 who died in May.
The worst month of the year for U.S. troops in Iraq was April when 135 died in a wave of insurgent attacks. Some had hoped the violence would decrease after an interim Iraqi government was given sovereignty June 28, but the death toll has risen steadily since then.
Forty-two U.S. military deaths were recorded in June and 54 in July. ...
WASHINGTON - September was the second-deadliest month of the year for U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites) and brought to nearly 500 the number who have died since the insurgency escalated in late March.
The Pentagon (news - web sites) announced Sunday evening that two soldiers died late last week of injuries suffered earlier in the month, and another was killed Sept. 30 by a roadside bomb. That brought the month's death toll to 80, up from 65 in August and equal to the 80 who died in May.
The worst month of the year for U.S. troops in Iraq was April when 135 died in a wave of insurgent attacks. Some had hoped the violence would decrease after an interim Iraqi government was given sovereignty June 28, but the death toll has risen steadily since then.
Forty-two U.S. military deaths were recorded in June and 54 in July. ...
Monday, September 27, 2004
Body Count: Killings Surge in Iraq: 25 per day, 3,000 gunshot deaths in 8 months [vs. almost none before the war]
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Body Count: Killings Surge in Iraq, and Doctors See a Procession of Misery: "By ALEX BERENSON | Published: September 26, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Business is booming at the Baghdad morgue.
Before the war, before the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, seven or eight bodies arrived each day at this nondescript building in northeastern Baghdad for autopsies. Most deaths resulted from car crashes or other accidents. Killings were rare, and gun violence rarer still, a testament to the monopoly that Mr. Hussein held on the use of force.
Now the paper-and-cardboard ledgers where the autopsies are logged are torn from overuse. On an average day, the morgue receives 20 to 25 bodies, the human cost of the post-war wave of crime and insurgency engulfing the city.
The unexpected change is an increase in bullet injuries," said Dr. Abdul Razzaq al-Obeidi, one of the morgue's chief doctors. "Mostly vengeance." In the first eight months of this year nearly 3,000 people in municipal Baghdad, which has about five million residents, have died from gunshot wounds - nearly all homicides, Dr. Obeidi said. A surge of killings in September has only increased the pressure.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Business is booming at the Baghdad morgue.
Before the war, before the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, seven or eight bodies arrived each day at this nondescript building in northeastern Baghdad for autopsies. Most deaths resulted from car crashes or other accidents. Killings were rare, and gun violence rarer still, a testament to the monopoly that Mr. Hussein held on the use of force.
Now the paper-and-cardboard ledgers where the autopsies are logged are torn from overuse. On an average day, the morgue receives 20 to 25 bodies, the human cost of the post-war wave of crime and insurgency engulfing the city.
The unexpected change is an increase in bullet injuries," said Dr. Abdul Razzaq al-Obeidi, one of the morgue's chief doctors. "Mostly vengeance." In the first eight months of this year nearly 3,000 people in municipal Baghdad, which has about five million residents, have died from gunshot wounds - nearly all homicides, Dr. Obeidi said. A surge of killings in September has only increased the pressure.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Many [Christians] oppose abortion on religious grounds ... but favor U.S. serial war with equal passion: rarely object to the 'collateral' killing
AxisofLogic/ Religion/World View: "In the Realm of Judeo-Christianity, Some Lives are More Precious than Others | By Charles E. Carlson | Aug 13, 2004, 10:23
A strange paradox is predominant among the Judeo-Christian celebrities. It is found in mega-churches and bible study groups, and even in pro-life organizations. Many of these oppose abortion on religious grounds, but most favor U.S. serial war with equal passion. Oddly, pro-life leaders and spokesmen rarely object to the 'collateral' killing of thousands, perhaps millions, of children who are virtually undefended. Many of those killed are pregnant women, especially in Iraq, where a modest estimate is now up to 9,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 2003. With the death of each pregnant woman, an unnamed unborn child also dies. We will explore why this ambivalence exists and its effect on the so-called 'Judeo-Christian' culture.
...
... The Southern Baptist Convention, which boasts some 16 million members and 45,000 churches and is the largest Judeo-Christian faction. Here is its official policy on the sanctity of human life:
“Procreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, whatever the circumstances of conception.”
So far so good! Now for the war policy of the SBC. Only one formal resolution on war has been recorded in its 165 year history, and that concerned Iraq in July 2003, after the bombing was declared ended and the casualty rate of civilians was known to be high. Here, in part, are the SBC’s words taken from its website:
“RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 17–18, 2003, affirm President George W. Bush, the United States Congress, and our armed forces for their leadership in the successful execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Note the Southern Baptist policy on life specifically states that the circumstances of the individual are irrelevant to its right to protection. In other words, a child’s life is sacred regardless of race, parentage, or nationality; yet the War resolution declares the bombing of Iraq to be “successful.” What about those lives?
A strange paradox is predominant among the Judeo-Christian celebrities. It is found in mega-churches and bible study groups, and even in pro-life organizations. Many of these oppose abortion on religious grounds, but most favor U.S. serial war with equal passion. Oddly, pro-life leaders and spokesmen rarely object to the 'collateral' killing of thousands, perhaps millions, of children who are virtually undefended. Many of those killed are pregnant women, especially in Iraq, where a modest estimate is now up to 9,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 2003. With the death of each pregnant woman, an unnamed unborn child also dies. We will explore why this ambivalence exists and its effect on the so-called 'Judeo-Christian' culture.
...
... The Southern Baptist Convention, which boasts some 16 million members and 45,000 churches and is the largest Judeo-Christian faction. Here is its official policy on the sanctity of human life:
“Procreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, whatever the circumstances of conception.”
So far so good! Now for the war policy of the SBC. Only one formal resolution on war has been recorded in its 165 year history, and that concerned Iraq in July 2003, after the bombing was declared ended and the casualty rate of civilians was known to be high. Here, in part, are the SBC’s words taken from its website:
“RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 17–18, 2003, affirm President George W. Bush, the United States Congress, and our armed forces for their leadership in the successful execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Note the Southern Baptist policy on life specifically states that the circumstances of the individual are irrelevant to its right to protection. In other words, a child’s life is sacred regardless of race, parentage, or nationality; yet the War resolution declares the bombing of Iraq to be “successful.” What about those lives?
"two state solution": The solution is not to establish another ethnic state but to disestablish the ones that exist now
AxisofLogic/ Palestine: "Should There Be A Jewish State? | By John Spritzler | Sep 21, 2004, 02:58
Editor's Note: This is a reprint from our first publication of John Spritzler's article on April 13, 2004. - Eds.
'I would much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state.'
- Albert Einstein, in Ideas and Opinions, [Crown Publishers, New York, 1954], p. 190
'A state cannot be Jewish, just as a chair or a bus cannot be Jewish...The state is no more than a tool, a tool that is efficient or a tool that is defective, a tool that is suitable or a tool that is undesirable. And this tool must belong to all its citizens -- Jews, Moslems, Christians...The concept of a 'Jewish State' is nothing other than a snare.'
- Amos Oz, Israel's preeminent writer of fiction, in 'A Laden Wagon and an Empty Wagon?
Reflections on the Culture of Israel,' Free Judaism, October 1997, p. 5 [Hebrew]"
The idea of a Jewish state (whose Jewish proponents call themselves "Zionists") is sacrosanct in the mainstream U.S. media, which does not give voice to the troublesome questions raised by the issue, in particular that many Jews have historically opposed the idea of a Jewish state. The establishment of Israel has been far more controversial among Jews than most Americans are aware. Jewish opponents of a Jewish state believed in democracy with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews, and thought a purely Jewish sovereignty would be disastrous for ordinary Jews.
...
... The Holocaust is no more a reason for Jews to have a state of their own than slavery is a reason for African-Americans to have a pure "Black state" of their own.
Most Jews who survived the Holocaust, when given a choice between going to Palestine to create a Jewish state or going to the United States, chose the United States because it seemed to offer what they really wanted — a society where people are equal before the law and Jews are treated the same as everybody else.
WHAT NOW?
The very concept of ethnically pure states is divisive and destined to stoke conflict. The so-called "two state solution" in the Middle East — establishing a Palestinian state to counter the Jewish state — is a conceptual and political trap that prevents Arab and Jewish working people from uniting around their common interests and values. The situation in the Middle East cannot be solved within this framework; it leads nowhere except to more destruction and hate and more elite control.
The solution is not to establish another ethnic state but to disestablish the ones that exist now. Israel, as well as states that are just for Muslims or any other ethnic group, must cease to exist as states based on apartheid and ethnic domination. They must be replaced by secular democracies with equal rights for all, regardless of their ethnic background, and with equal tolerance for all religions.
Editor's Note: This is a reprint from our first publication of John Spritzler's article on April 13, 2004. - Eds.
'I would much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state.'
- Albert Einstein, in Ideas and Opinions, [Crown Publishers, New York, 1954], p. 190
'A state cannot be Jewish, just as a chair or a bus cannot be Jewish...The state is no more than a tool, a tool that is efficient or a tool that is defective, a tool that is suitable or a tool that is undesirable. And this tool must belong to all its citizens -- Jews, Moslems, Christians...The concept of a 'Jewish State' is nothing other than a snare.'
- Amos Oz, Israel's preeminent writer of fiction, in 'A Laden Wagon and an Empty Wagon?
Reflections on the Culture of Israel,' Free Judaism, October 1997, p. 5 [Hebrew]"
The idea of a Jewish state (whose Jewish proponents call themselves "Zionists") is sacrosanct in the mainstream U.S. media, which does not give voice to the troublesome questions raised by the issue, in particular that many Jews have historically opposed the idea of a Jewish state. The establishment of Israel has been far more controversial among Jews than most Americans are aware. Jewish opponents of a Jewish state believed in democracy with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews, and thought a purely Jewish sovereignty would be disastrous for ordinary Jews.
...
... The Holocaust is no more a reason for Jews to have a state of their own than slavery is a reason for African-Americans to have a pure "Black state" of their own.
Most Jews who survived the Holocaust, when given a choice between going to Palestine to create a Jewish state or going to the United States, chose the United States because it seemed to offer what they really wanted — a society where people are equal before the law and Jews are treated the same as everybody else.
WHAT NOW?
The very concept of ethnically pure states is divisive and destined to stoke conflict. The so-called "two state solution" in the Middle East — establishing a Palestinian state to counter the Jewish state — is a conceptual and political trap that prevents Arab and Jewish working people from uniting around their common interests and values. The situation in the Middle East cannot be solved within this framework; it leads nowhere except to more destruction and hate and more elite control.
The solution is not to establish another ethnic state but to disestablish the ones that exist now. Israel, as well as states that are just for Muslims or any other ethnic group, must cease to exist as states based on apartheid and ethnic domination. They must be replaced by secular democracies with equal rights for all, regardless of their ethnic background, and with equal tolerance for all religions.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
European Press Criticizes Bush Address to U.N. as a Denial of a Worsening Situation in Iraq
The New York Times > International > Europe > Diplomacy: European Press Criticizes Bush Address to U.N. as a Denial of a Worsening Situation in Iraq: "By PATRICK E. TYLER | Published: September 23, 2004
LONDON, Sept. 22 - The editorial cartoon in The Times of London on Wednesday was derisive: the first panel showed President Bush telling the United Nations General Assembly, 'Friends, our policy in Iraq is directed solely towards a successful election.'
The second panel had him saying which election: 'Mine.'
European newspapers, including some that supported the American military campaign in Iraq, were largely critical of Mr. Bush's address on Tuesday to the United Nations, accusing him of being unrealistic about the worsening situation in Iraq.
...
The Polish newspaper Nasz Dziennik, however, argued in an editorial that Mr. Bush, having "attacked Iraq in defiance" of those nations that called for United Nations authorization for invasion, Mr. Bush was now trying to convince the international community that it should pay for the "chaos'' caused by "reckless policy."
...
In Le Figaro, which reflects the thinking of France's conservative establishment, the correspondent Philippe Gélie wrote that Mr. Bush was "impervious to criticism'' in the conduct of American foreign policy, and characterized his speech as that of a "campaigning American president'' who "lectured the rest of the world.''
...
An editorial in the German daily Tagesspiegel was blunt. Its headline: "U.S., U.N., Iraq: The truth counts for nothing.''
LONDON, Sept. 22 - The editorial cartoon in The Times of London on Wednesday was derisive: the first panel showed President Bush telling the United Nations General Assembly, 'Friends, our policy in Iraq is directed solely towards a successful election.'
The second panel had him saying which election: 'Mine.'
European newspapers, including some that supported the American military campaign in Iraq, were largely critical of Mr. Bush's address on Tuesday to the United Nations, accusing him of being unrealistic about the worsening situation in Iraq.
...
The Polish newspaper Nasz Dziennik, however, argued in an editorial that Mr. Bush, having "attacked Iraq in defiance" of those nations that called for United Nations authorization for invasion, Mr. Bush was now trying to convince the international community that it should pay for the "chaos'' caused by "reckless policy."
...
In Le Figaro, which reflects the thinking of France's conservative establishment, the correspondent Philippe Gélie wrote that Mr. Bush was "impervious to criticism'' in the conduct of American foreign policy, and characterized his speech as that of a "campaigning American president'' who "lectured the rest of the world.''
...
An editorial in the German daily Tagesspiegel was blunt. Its headline: "U.S., U.N., Iraq: The truth counts for nothing.''
The War's Toll on Iraqi Civilians: 30,000 or 13,000 civilians? [and the non-civilians killed during the first assault?]
The War's Toll on Iraqi Civilians (washingtonpost.com): "By Jefferson Morley | washingtonpost.com Staff Writer | Tuesday, September 21, 2004; 9:01 AM
When the 1,000th U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq earlier this month, more than a few commentators in the international online media took note of another death toll: Iraqi civilians.
...
"While so much is made of the 1,000 US military fatalities," said a columnist for Gulf News in the United Arab Emirates, "an eerie silence surrounds the tally of Iraqi casualties since the invasion."
...
Since then, other figures have been floated. Commentators for the Jordan Times and the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon, have cited an estimate of 30,000 deaths. That is the figure disseminated by the Iraqi Human Rights Organization, an independent group in Baghdad.
A more conservative figure comes from Iraqbodycount.net, a British Web site that compiles media reports on Iraqi civilian deaths. Based on such reporting, the site says there have been a minimum of 12,778 civilian deaths in Iraq and a maximum of 14,820. ...
When the 1,000th U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq earlier this month, more than a few commentators in the international online media took note of another death toll: Iraqi civilians.
...
"While so much is made of the 1,000 US military fatalities," said a columnist for Gulf News in the United Arab Emirates, "an eerie silence surrounds the tally of Iraqi casualties since the invasion."
...
Since then, other figures have been floated. Commentators for the Jordan Times and the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon, have cited an estimate of 30,000 deaths. That is the figure disseminated by the Iraqi Human Rights Organization, an independent group in Baghdad.
A more conservative figure comes from Iraqbodycount.net, a British Web site that compiles media reports on Iraqi civilian deaths. Based on such reporting, the site says there have been a minimum of 12,778 civilian deaths in Iraq and a maximum of 14,820. ...
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Fallujah: US warplanes: 16 dead, 12 wounded incl women, children, ambulance ... 'The American army has no morals.'
Patrick Cockburn: The Punishment of Fallujah: "September 14, 2004 | US Precision Strikes...on Ambulances | By PATRICK COCKBURN | Baghdad
A plume of grey smoke billowed above Fallujah yesterday as the US military claimed they were making precision air strikes against insurgents in the city and local doctors said that civilians were being killed and wounded.
The US army said its warplanes had bombed houses because it had intelligence about the presence of fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom the US sees as the guiding hand behind many attacks on its forces.
Dr Adel Khamis of the Fallujah General Hospital said at least 16 people were killed, including women and children, and 12 others were wounded. Video film showed a Red Crescent ambulance torn apart by an explosion. A hospital official said the driver, a paramedic and five patients had been killed by the blast.
'The conditions here are miserable - an ambulance was bombed, three houses destroyed and men and women killed,' said Rafayi Hayad al-Esawi, the director of the hospital. 'The American army has no morals.'"
A plume of grey smoke billowed above Fallujah yesterday as the US military claimed they were making precision air strikes against insurgents in the city and local doctors said that civilians were being killed and wounded.
The US army said its warplanes had bombed houses because it had intelligence about the presence of fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom the US sees as the guiding hand behind many attacks on its forces.
Dr Adel Khamis of the Fallujah General Hospital said at least 16 people were killed, including women and children, and 12 others were wounded. Video film showed a Red Crescent ambulance torn apart by an explosion. A hospital official said the driver, a paramedic and five patients had been killed by the blast.
'The conditions here are miserable - an ambulance was bombed, three houses destroyed and men and women killed,' said Rafayi Hayad al-Esawi, the director of the hospital. 'The American army has no morals.'"
Thursday, September 02, 2004
|TheStar.com - 17 killed in U.S. air strike
TheStar.com - 17 killed in U.S. air strike: "17 killed in U.S. air strike | 3 children among dead as U.S. hits militant safehouse | 7 hostages freed in Iraq after boss pays $500,000
FALLUJA, Iraq�A U.S. air strike on the city of Falluja late yesterday killed 17 civilians, including three children, and wounded six others, hospital officials said.
Also yesterday, Iraqi militants released seven foreign hostages after their employer paid $500,000 (U.S.) ransom.
Witnesses said the strike hit a residence in the southern neighbourhood of al-Jubail. People struggled to pull bodies from the rubble, while ambulances and cars took the dead and wounded to the hospital.
The U.S. military said they hit a suspected safehouse used by followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "
FALLUJA, Iraq�A U.S. air strike on the city of Falluja late yesterday killed 17 civilians, including three children, and wounded six others, hospital officials said.
Also yesterday, Iraqi militants released seven foreign hostages after their employer paid $500,000 (U.S.) ransom.
Witnesses said the strike hit a residence in the southern neighbourhood of al-Jubail. People struggled to pull bodies from the rubble, while ambulances and cars took the dead and wounded to the hospital.
The U.S. military said they hit a suspected safehouse used by followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "
Monday, June 14, 2004
Israelis to Extend Barrier Deeper Into West Bank: Sharon advisor: "exactly what we agreed with the Americans"
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Israelis to Extend Barrier Deeper Into West Bank: "By GREG MYRE | Published: June 15, 2004
JERUSALEM, June 14 - Israel is preparing to build new segments of its separation barrier around Jewish settlements that would mark the deepest penetration yet into the West Bank, a move that drew sharp criticism from Palestinians on Monday.
President Bush has called the fence's route a "problem," and American officials have raised objections in continuing talks with the Israelis. But Israel has insisted that Washington has not opposed the first phase of construction around Ariel and nearby settlements that are more than 10 miles inside the West Bank.
The Israeli plan, approved by the government last fall, calls for building a barrier around three sides of Ariel, which is about 20 miles north of Jerusalem and is one of the largest Jewish settlements, with close to 20,000 residents. This same building pattern would be carried out around several other settlements in the same area.
After this work is completed, Israel would consult with the United States about joining these sections together and linking them with the main barrier, which runs closer to the West Bank boundary, said Asaf Shariv, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
"This is exactly what we agreed to with the Americans," he said.
JERUSALEM, June 14 - Israel is preparing to build new segments of its separation barrier around Jewish settlements that would mark the deepest penetration yet into the West Bank, a move that drew sharp criticism from Palestinians on Monday.
President Bush has called the fence's route a "problem," and American officials have raised objections in continuing talks with the Israelis. But Israel has insisted that Washington has not opposed the first phase of construction around Ariel and nearby settlements that are more than 10 miles inside the West Bank.
The Israeli plan, approved by the government last fall, calls for building a barrier around three sides of Ariel, which is about 20 miles north of Jerusalem and is one of the largest Jewish settlements, with close to 20,000 residents. This same building pattern would be carried out around several other settlements in the same area.
After this work is completed, Israel would consult with the United States about joining these sections together and linking them with the main barrier, which runs closer to the West Bank boundary, said Asaf Shariv, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
"This is exactly what we agreed to with the Americans," he said.
Baghdad: car bomb: 13 dead, incl 5 US workers
Excite News: "Crowds Celebrate 13 Deaths in Iraq Blast | Jun 14, 9:00 PM (ET) | By ROBERT H. REID
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A car bomb shattered a convoy of Westerners in Baghdad Monday, killing at least 13 people, including three General Electric workers and two bodyguards. Crowds rejoiced over the attack, dancing around a charred body and shouting 'Down with the USA!'"
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A car bomb shattered a convoy of Westerners in Baghdad Monday, killing at least 13 people, including three General Electric workers and two bodyguards. Crowds rejoiced over the attack, dancing around a charred body and shouting 'Down with the USA!'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)