Revolt in Paradise
Mohammad Gill September 18, 2006
#167 Posted by okhla99 on September 24, 2006 10:09:30 am
CHECK THIS OUT, YOU GUYS..
9/11 ORIGINS
Why protect the Saudi royal family and Pakistani military?
BY GERALD POSNER
posner@posner.com
On Wednesday, President Bush admitted officially for the first time that the CIA held some foreign terror suspects abroad. In his remarks, he spoke about Abu Zubaydah, whom I discussed at length in Chapter 19, ``The Interrogation,`` of my 2003 book, Why America Slept.
Bush acknowledged some of the information I disclosed, that Zubaydah was wounded when captured, that he did not initially cooperate with his interrogators and that eventually when he did talk, his information was, according to Bush, ``quite important.``
Bush credits Zubaydah with helping, in part, to capture terror kingpin Khalid Sheik Mohammed, giving information that stopped a previously unknown terror strike from happening, and providing details about other al Qaeda operatives.
But Bush did not mention what I had disclosed -- that Zubaydah had also named three Saudi princes -- one of whom was the king`s nephew -- and the chief of Pakistan`s air force, as his chief contacts in those two countries. Moreover, Zubaydah told American investigators that two of those he named -- and for which he provided their private telephone numbers -- had advance knowledge about the 9/11 attacks.
It would be nice to pursue the investigation of these men, but all four named by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes:
• The king`s 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe.
• The second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one-car accident.
• And the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, ``of thirst.``
The head of Pakistan`s Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, died together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003.
Bush did not refer to any of this in his comments. Not surprising, since the 9/11 Commission did not mention the dead men named by Zubaydah. Moreover, as I revealed nearly three years ago, the CIA extracted the information from Zubaydah by pulling off a ``fake flag`` operation, in which Zubaydah thought he was in Saudi custody and gave the names of the princes in an attempt to get himself freed.
Moreover, U.S. interrogators used pain killers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet.
Bush did not give particulars, but did say, ``We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful.
``I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary.``
Why does Bush, and the CIA, continue to protect the Saudi royal family and the Pakistani military, from the implications of Zubaydah`s confessions? It is, or course, because the Bush administration desperately needs Pakistani and Saudi help, not only to keep Afghanistan from spinning completely out of control, but also as counterweights to the growing power of Iran.
The Sunni governments in Riyadh and Islamabad have as much to fear from a resurgent Iran as does the Bush administration. But does this mean that leads about the origins of 9/11 should not be aggressively pursued? Of course not. But this is precisely what the Bush administration is doing.
The president should not be allowed to selectively trot out parts of Zubaydah`s ``confessions`` to support the CIA`s interrogation techniques, without talking about Zubaydah`s naming of Saudi royals and Pakistani military officers. The victims of 9/11 deserve no less than the complete truth as the fifth anniversary draws near.
Gerald Posner is a journalist and author of Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11.
9/11 ORIGINS
Why protect the Saudi royal family and Pakistani military?
BY GERALD POSNER
posner@posner.com
On Wednesday, President Bush admitted officially for the first time that the CIA held some foreign terror suspects abroad. In his remarks, he spoke about Abu Zubaydah, whom I discussed at length in Chapter 19, ``The Interrogation,`` of my 2003 book, Why America Slept.
Bush acknowledged some of the information I disclosed, that Zubaydah was wounded when captured, that he did not initially cooperate with his interrogators and that eventually when he did talk, his information was, according to Bush, ``quite important.``
Bush credits Zubaydah with helping, in part, to capture terror kingpin Khalid Sheik Mohammed, giving information that stopped a previously unknown terror strike from happening, and providing details about other al Qaeda operatives.
But Bush did not mention what I had disclosed -- that Zubaydah had also named three Saudi princes -- one of whom was the king`s nephew -- and the chief of Pakistan`s air force, as his chief contacts in those two countries. Moreover, Zubaydah told American investigators that two of those he named -- and for which he provided their private telephone numbers -- had advance knowledge about the 9/11 attacks.
It would be nice to pursue the investigation of these men, but all four named by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes:
• The king`s 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe.
• The second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one-car accident.
• And the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, ``of thirst.``
The head of Pakistan`s Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, died together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003.
Bush did not refer to any of this in his comments. Not surprising, since the 9/11 Commission did not mention the dead men named by Zubaydah. Moreover, as I revealed nearly three years ago, the CIA extracted the information from Zubaydah by pulling off a ``fake flag`` operation, in which Zubaydah thought he was in Saudi custody and gave the names of the princes in an attempt to get himself freed.
Moreover, U.S. interrogators used pain killers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet.
Bush did not give particulars, but did say, ``We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful.
``I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary.``
Why does Bush, and the CIA, continue to protect the Saudi royal family and the Pakistani military, from the implications of Zubaydah`s confessions? It is, or course, because the Bush administration desperately needs Pakistani and Saudi help, not only to keep Afghanistan from spinning completely out of control, but also as counterweights to the growing power of Iran.
The Sunni governments in Riyadh and Islamabad have as much to fear from a resurgent Iran as does the Bush administration. But does this mean that leads about the origins of 9/11 should not be aggressively pursued? Of course not. But this is precisely what the Bush administration is doing.
The president should not be allowed to selectively trot out parts of Zubaydah`s ``confessions`` to support the CIA`s interrogation techniques, without talking about Zubaydah`s naming of Saudi royals and Pakistani military officers. The victims of 9/11 deserve no less than the complete truth as the fifth anniversary draws near.
Gerald Posner is a journalist and author of Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#166 Posted by zeemax on September 24, 2006 3:53:02 am
...but that harkens back to Plato`s republic. Indeed, the gaps can be bridged.
#165 Posted by zeemax on September 24, 2006 3:46:33 am
#164 by masadi
Therefore, we can conclude that an Islamic society would have a counsel where the public consults with the decision makers, the decision makers would be the ones ``who know`` (as deduced above) i.e. are qualified in the area in which they are making decisions. The decision makers would be numerous, unless one person claims to know everything in all fields, which is impossible. A counsel of intellectuals with no limit to their numbers that are in constant touch with the public and consult with them is thus the Islamic form of government.
Thanks. I fully agree.
At the same time I want to acknowledge your bringing into attention the following verse, which W. Somerset Maugham repeated (or realized) centuries later in the words that ``the most widely held opinions are most likely to be wrong than anything else``.
6:116 Were you to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.
Therefore, we can conclude that an Islamic society would have a counsel where the public consults with the decision makers, the decision makers would be the ones ``who know`` (as deduced above) i.e. are qualified in the area in which they are making decisions. The decision makers would be numerous, unless one person claims to know everything in all fields, which is impossible. A counsel of intellectuals with no limit to their numbers that are in constant touch with the public and consult with them is thus the Islamic form of government.
Thanks. I fully agree.
At the same time I want to acknowledge your bringing into attention the following verse, which W. Somerset Maugham repeated (or realized) centuries later in the words that ``the most widely held opinions are most likely to be wrong than anything else``.
6:116 Were you to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.
#164 Posted by masadi on September 24, 2006 3:03:53 am
Zeemax <<< So what is the means of Governance as mandated by Quran? >>>
Actually I did an article on it which can be read here
#163 Posted by zeemax on September 24, 2006 2:48:31 am
Why are the people of Thailand, who are not even oppressed except in the South, accepting a military coup and rejecting democracy? This image is from Bangkok. Noone knows what`s happening in the South. It is under a journalistic blackout.
#162 Posted by zeemax on September 24, 2006 2:18:17 am
#160 by masadi
Masadi, I`m a bit perplexed with your answer.
You have rejected my thesis of governance i.e it is only to be by the person ``Who is the best in deeds`` as being the Quranic injunction. You have said that it is not for man to judge who is the best in deeds but ``best of you in the sight of God`` so it has nothing to do with either rulers or governance.
I also hear you when you say ``Quran says consult with them on the conduct of affairs ~ who gets to decide affairs on various levels is also an `affair`.`` Absolutely correct.
At the same time you appear to agree with me about conventional democracy not being representative of the `people` which is actually ``consulting with them on the conduct of affairs.`` as you pointed out above.
So what is the means of Governance as mandated by Quran? I could give you a dozen examples of how the four caliphs governed successfully a vast empire but you wouldn`t accept those arguments in light of your rejection of Islamic history. If Quran is a complete mode of existence, which I do believe it to be, what about Governance?
Masadi, I`m a bit perplexed with your answer.
You have rejected my thesis of governance i.e it is only to be by the person ``Who is the best in deeds`` as being the Quranic injunction. You have said that it is not for man to judge who is the best in deeds but ``best of you in the sight of God`` so it has nothing to do with either rulers or governance.
I also hear you when you say ``Quran says consult with them on the conduct of affairs ~ who gets to decide affairs on various levels is also an `affair`.`` Absolutely correct.
At the same time you appear to agree with me about conventional democracy not being representative of the `people` which is actually ``consulting with them on the conduct of affairs.`` as you pointed out above.
So what is the means of Governance as mandated by Quran? I could give you a dozen examples of how the four caliphs governed successfully a vast empire but you wouldn`t accept those arguments in light of your rejection of Islamic history. If Quran is a complete mode of existence, which I do believe it to be, what about Governance?
#161 Posted by strongman_dick on September 24, 2006 2:07:23 am
#160 the same arguments can be given in favour of Dictatorship. Did not Mushy give a similar set of reasons, zia before him, and several others before them.
Never knew youcould end up supporting dictatorships.
Never knew youcould end up supporting dictatorships.
#160 Posted by masadi on September 24, 2006 1:47:12 am
Zeemax <<< My purpose was to highlight the difference between ``Who amongst you is the best in deeds`` as against `` Who amongst you has the most votes``. >>>
Voting is presented as an indicator of democracy but it certainly is not. Democracy implies in its essence that people whose lives are affected by decisions have a say in those decisions, as the Quran says ``consult with them on the conduct of affairs``~ who gets to decide affairs on various levels is also an ``affair``, and if they are programmed to think in certain ways, as in the US, manipulated by the media or are uneducated then democracy cannot exist regardless of the voting that takes place. Being `best in deed` is for God to determine where humans become invoved in that it is quite subjective and success in one position cannot easily translate into success in another and of course all this leads to sectariansim and divisions. Also nobody is best in everything so he will be going beyond his ``bestness`` on most major issues, power therefore should not be centralized in the person of one man or a group of elites, and the verse on the ``best of you in the sight of God`` when related to the system of governance is a wide stretch from what the verse is saying, which has nothing to do with either rulers or governance.
Voting is presented as an indicator of democracy but it certainly is not. Democracy implies in its essence that people whose lives are affected by decisions have a say in those decisions, as the Quran says ``consult with them on the conduct of affairs``~ who gets to decide affairs on various levels is also an ``affair``, and if they are programmed to think in certain ways, as in the US, manipulated by the media or are uneducated then democracy cannot exist regardless of the voting that takes place. Being `best in deed` is for God to determine where humans become invoved in that it is quite subjective and success in one position cannot easily translate into success in another and of course all this leads to sectariansim and divisions. Also nobody is best in everything so he will be going beyond his ``bestness`` on most major issues, power therefore should not be centralized in the person of one man or a group of elites, and the verse on the ``best of you in the sight of God`` when related to the system of governance is a wide stretch from what the verse is saying, which has nothing to do with either rulers or governance.
#159 Posted by zeemax on September 23, 2006 11:36:56 pm
#156 by masadi
My purpose was to highlight the difference between ``Who amongst you is the best in deeds`` as against `` Who amongst you has the most votes``.
I maintain democracy does not work because it cannot work due to inherent flaws in its basic makeup i.e. numerical superiority regardless of how achieved amongst not even the entire adult population but only the registered ones, and from those too only amongst those who turned out to cast their votes. That results in tyranny of a few since it is no problem for oligarchs to get the most votes. However when the duly elected oligarchs themselves begin to work against vital interests of the state or the tide of widespread public opinion, the military steps in as in case of the Thailand coup or even the judiciary as may perhaps be the case in India. While judicial intervention can be counted as `system of checks & balances`, military interventios certainly cannot be termed as such.
As for ``...how are you going to determine which one is best ...``, the answer should not be difficult. Past performance is a good indicator of future performance. In the early days this was determined by a council of prominent opinion leaders; in the present days an example is the candidacy of Ahmedinijad based on his performance as mayor of Tehran. However, the `supreme` leader there remains the top spiritual figure and not the elected President.
Above model works in Shia Iran, but should evolve in other Muslim states as well since this eliminates oligarchies.
My purpose was to highlight the difference between ``Who amongst you is the best in deeds`` as against `` Who amongst you has the most votes``.
I maintain democracy does not work because it cannot work due to inherent flaws in its basic makeup i.e. numerical superiority regardless of how achieved amongst not even the entire adult population but only the registered ones, and from those too only amongst those who turned out to cast their votes. That results in tyranny of a few since it is no problem for oligarchs to get the most votes. However when the duly elected oligarchs themselves begin to work against vital interests of the state or the tide of widespread public opinion, the military steps in as in case of the Thailand coup or even the judiciary as may perhaps be the case in India. While judicial intervention can be counted as `system of checks & balances`, military interventios certainly cannot be termed as such.
As for ``...how are you going to determine which one is best ...``, the answer should not be difficult. Past performance is a good indicator of future performance. In the early days this was determined by a council of prominent opinion leaders; in the present days an example is the candidacy of Ahmedinijad based on his performance as mayor of Tehran. However, the `supreme` leader there remains the top spiritual figure and not the elected President.
Above model works in Shia Iran, but should evolve in other Muslim states as well since this eliminates oligarchies.
#158 Posted by tahmed32 on September 23, 2006 7:44:33 pm
#157 Chavez marketing the Chomsky book. Bush marketing the Mush book. Friends marketing books for friends. So what is the problem with that?? :-)
#156 Posted by masadi on September 23, 2006 6:44:02 pm
Zeemax writes <<< Both the instances which you mentioned i.e. people imploring judiciary or welcoming military coups, most recent in Thailand, is because democracy doesn`t work. Period. People want a higher morality which mere politicians cannot deliver. There are too many pressures on them for votes.
That is what Islam has been saying all along. The ruler can be the only one ``who is the best in Deeds``. >>>
If the military (which is just as corrupt) or the economic (which is super corrupt) interferes with the political it ensures that the political institution will never mature and will produce just such problems as you mention. This does not mean that ``democracy does not work``, it means, it is not allowed to work.
Further, the verse in the Quran that talks about the ``best`` in the sight of God being the one with most Taqwa or social consciousness does not refer to the ruler but is addressed to everyone and it refers to the judgment of God, how are you going to determine which one is best, anyone can claim that for political purposes for himself or herself, know that only Allah is aware of the hidden and he does not liberally communicate with Mullah regardless of what Pat Robertson claims.
That is what Islam has been saying all along. The ruler can be the only one ``who is the best in Deeds``. >>>
If the military (which is just as corrupt) or the economic (which is super corrupt) interferes with the political it ensures that the political institution will never mature and will produce just such problems as you mention. This does not mean that ``democracy does not work``, it means, it is not allowed to work.
Further, the verse in the Quran that talks about the ``best`` in the sight of God being the one with most Taqwa or social consciousness does not refer to the ruler but is addressed to everyone and it refers to the judgment of God, how are you going to determine which one is best, anyone can claim that for political purposes for himself or herself, know that only Allah is aware of the hidden and he does not liberally communicate with Mullah regardless of what Pat Robertson claims.
#154 Posted by aslam644 on September 23, 2006 8:39:02 am
as this case in UK prives judges can be corrupt as any other institution.
``
`Chilli-hot Brazilian found sex videos of judge snorting coke`
BY JENNY PERCIVAL AND PA
A ``chilli-hot`` Brazilian cleaner told a blackmail trial today of the moment she discovered a home made video of two judges having sex while the female snorted cocaine.
Roselane Driza, 37, told the Old Bailey that she discovered two videos made by her lover, an immigration judge known as Mr I.
One showed him having sex with a blonde woman. The other showed him and her former employer, another judge known as Miss J. According to Miss Driza the video, filmed in Thailand, showed Miss J snorting the class A drug and having intimate relations with Mr I.
She said: ``Because of what I saw in the video made me frightened. It seemed to me that she was using cocaine apparently and he (Mr I) was close to her. So I paused and put it away and I did not see any more.``
Earlier in the week Miss J denied being filmed having sex or taking cocaine.
Miss Driza said she offered to return the video featuring the blonde woman but not the other tape. She destroyed them after her arrest in October 2005 on blackmail charges.
The cleaner described how Miss J was so angry when she found out that she was sleeping with her former lover, Mr I, that she told him she was worthless and always drunk.
The prosecution claims that Miss Driza blackmailed Miss J by threatening to tell Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, that she worked as her cleaner for almost five years without a work permit.
She is also accused of blackmailing Mr I, to live rent-free at his home, and of stealing two home-made sex videos from him. She denies all the charges.
Miss Driza, who was dressed in a white lacy dress, black and white jacket, and long earrings, spoke through an interpreter.
Giving evidence on the fourth day of the trial, she recounted a telephone conversation she overheard between Miss J and Mr I as she sat on his lap.
She said: ``She knew I was with him. She asked if I was going to remain with him, if he was going to have a serious relationship with me, that I was just a f****** cleaner, I was interested in his position, in money.``
Asked how she had reacted to this, Miss Driza said: ``Very bad... even today.`` She added: ``It was very difficult for me sitting on his lap or at his side and he was calling me names.``
Asked what else Miss J said, Miss Driza said: ``That when I was at her flat when we were friends I used to say to her that I used to sleep with two men at the same time.
``So she said to Mr I that I was worthless. She said I was always drunk and I drink only cola juice.``
Miss J and Mr I both worked as asylum and immigration tribunal judges and lived together for five years before separating in 2000. They remained friends.
Miss Driza began cleaning Mr I`s house in 2001 and three years later they started a relationship and she moved in with him.
Their relationship continued until Miss Driza was arrested, at his house. In e-mails to Miss Driza, the court heard yesterday, that Mr I described her as ``real chilli-hot stuff`` and ``a lovely shag``.
Miss Driza claims that she was unfairly sacked by Miss J, so she could be alone with her new lover. ``I was working in the afternoon and J arrived early with him. They went straight to the bedroom and she was curious I was there. I do not think she expected me to be there. She said to me ‘Go, go, go’. She almost threw me out of the window.``
After the incident she received a telephone call terminating her employment. ``She said she didn’t require me any more and requested her keys back.``
She rang Miss J after listening to her message. ``I asked her what was happening and she told me she did not have to say what was happening. She said there was not a reason.
``I said I had been working for her five years - I wanted a reason, an explanation. She did not want to say anything and terminated the call.``
When Miss Driza rang her again, she said Miss J started shouting. ``She had lost control. She shouted ‘F****** Brazilian b****. F****** dirty woman’ and switched off.``
The Brazilian said she that believed that Miss J owed her an explanation and money after she was sacked. She never received an explanation and later asked for £20,000 compensation.
Miss Driza`s counsel, Frances Oldham, QC, asked: ``Compensation for what were you owed?`` The Brazilian replied: ``For the way I had been treated. Racism and discrimination. My distress and the calling of names and the bad words. All the damage - psychological. There is no money that could pay.``
She added she had worked for several people ``and she was the only one I had a problem with``.
Miss Driza told the court that Mr I had suggested the £20,000 figure to her. ``He said it was more than fair. At that time I took his suggestion because I always listened to him. But if I had to ask her without his opinion I do not think it would be less than £100,000 because there is no price for what she has done to me.``
She was paid £5 an hour when she started working for Miss J in 1999 which increased to £7. She was paid for one month`s holiday a year and expected one month`s notice if the agreement was terminated, Miss Driza told jurors.
She had also been dismissed by Mr I but when she went to his house just before Christmas to give him a card he said they could still be friends. A week later they were intimate.
According to Miss Driza, Mr I said he had to spend Christmas with Miss J because ``she was very depressive and is going to kill herself``.
Miss Driza described how Miss J discovered that the pair were lovers. On Boxing Day, she was at Mr I’s flat after 10pm when Miss J arrived ``like a volcano`` and started ringing the bell and looking through the kitchen window.
Miss Driza said she was sitting on Mr I’s lap in the corridor. He was pale and trembling but Miss Driza said: ``I was not afraid of her... she was furious.``
``
`Chilli-hot Brazilian found sex videos of judge snorting coke`
BY JENNY PERCIVAL AND PA
A ``chilli-hot`` Brazilian cleaner told a blackmail trial today of the moment she discovered a home made video of two judges having sex while the female snorted cocaine.
Roselane Driza, 37, told the Old Bailey that she discovered two videos made by her lover, an immigration judge known as Mr I.
One showed him having sex with a blonde woman. The other showed him and her former employer, another judge known as Miss J. According to Miss Driza the video, filmed in Thailand, showed Miss J snorting the class A drug and having intimate relations with Mr I.
She said: ``Because of what I saw in the video made me frightened. It seemed to me that she was using cocaine apparently and he (Mr I) was close to her. So I paused and put it away and I did not see any more.``
Earlier in the week Miss J denied being filmed having sex or taking cocaine.
Miss Driza said she offered to return the video featuring the blonde woman but not the other tape. She destroyed them after her arrest in October 2005 on blackmail charges.
The cleaner described how Miss J was so angry when she found out that she was sleeping with her former lover, Mr I, that she told him she was worthless and always drunk.
The prosecution claims that Miss Driza blackmailed Miss J by threatening to tell Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, that she worked as her cleaner for almost five years without a work permit.
She is also accused of blackmailing Mr I, to live rent-free at his home, and of stealing two home-made sex videos from him. She denies all the charges.
Miss Driza, who was dressed in a white lacy dress, black and white jacket, and long earrings, spoke through an interpreter.
Giving evidence on the fourth day of the trial, she recounted a telephone conversation she overheard between Miss J and Mr I as she sat on his lap.
She said: ``She knew I was with him. She asked if I was going to remain with him, if he was going to have a serious relationship with me, that I was just a f****** cleaner, I was interested in his position, in money.``
Asked how she had reacted to this, Miss Driza said: ``Very bad... even today.`` She added: ``It was very difficult for me sitting on his lap or at his side and he was calling me names.``
Asked what else Miss J said, Miss Driza said: ``That when I was at her flat when we were friends I used to say to her that I used to sleep with two men at the same time.
``So she said to Mr I that I was worthless. She said I was always drunk and I drink only cola juice.``
Miss J and Mr I both worked as asylum and immigration tribunal judges and lived together for five years before separating in 2000. They remained friends.
Miss Driza began cleaning Mr I`s house in 2001 and three years later they started a relationship and she moved in with him.
Their relationship continued until Miss Driza was arrested, at his house. In e-mails to Miss Driza, the court heard yesterday, that Mr I described her as ``real chilli-hot stuff`` and ``a lovely shag``.
Miss Driza claims that she was unfairly sacked by Miss J, so she could be alone with her new lover. ``I was working in the afternoon and J arrived early with him. They went straight to the bedroom and she was curious I was there. I do not think she expected me to be there. She said to me ‘Go, go, go’. She almost threw me out of the window.``
After the incident she received a telephone call terminating her employment. ``She said she didn’t require me any more and requested her keys back.``
She rang Miss J after listening to her message. ``I asked her what was happening and she told me she did not have to say what was happening. She said there was not a reason.
``I said I had been working for her five years - I wanted a reason, an explanation. She did not want to say anything and terminated the call.``
When Miss Driza rang her again, she said Miss J started shouting. ``She had lost control. She shouted ‘F****** Brazilian b****. F****** dirty woman’ and switched off.``
The Brazilian said she that believed that Miss J owed her an explanation and money after she was sacked. She never received an explanation and later asked for £20,000 compensation.
Miss Driza`s counsel, Frances Oldham, QC, asked: ``Compensation for what were you owed?`` The Brazilian replied: ``For the way I had been treated. Racism and discrimination. My distress and the calling of names and the bad words. All the damage - psychological. There is no money that could pay.``
She added she had worked for several people ``and she was the only one I had a problem with``.
Miss Driza told the court that Mr I had suggested the £20,000 figure to her. ``He said it was more than fair. At that time I took his suggestion because I always listened to him. But if I had to ask her without his opinion I do not think it would be less than £100,000 because there is no price for what she has done to me.``
She was paid £5 an hour when she started working for Miss J in 1999 which increased to £7. She was paid for one month`s holiday a year and expected one month`s notice if the agreement was terminated, Miss Driza told jurors.
She had also been dismissed by Mr I but when she went to his house just before Christmas to give him a card he said they could still be friends. A week later they were intimate.
According to Miss Driza, Mr I said he had to spend Christmas with Miss J because ``she was very depressive and is going to kill herself``.
Miss Driza described how Miss J discovered that the pair were lovers. On Boxing Day, she was at Mr I’s flat after 10pm when Miss J arrived ``like a volcano`` and started ringing the bell and looking through the kitchen window.
Miss Driza said she was sitting on Mr I’s lap in the corridor. He was pale and trembling but Miss Driza said: ``I was not afraid of her... she was furious.``
#153 Posted by zeemax on September 23, 2006 8:16:14 am
#148 by GT
GT,
Is there a pattern here? People, initially, supporting Mush. in Pakistan; support for fundamentalists almost everywhere and support for judicial fundamentalism especially in India. Can we learn something from this?
Of-course there`s a pattern in this.
Both the instances which you mentioned i.e. people imploring judiciary or welcoming military coups, most recent in Thailand, is because democracy doesn`t work. Period. People want a higher morality which mere politicians cannot deliver. There are too many pressures on them for votes.
That is what Islam has been saying all along. The ruler can be the only one ``who is the best in Deeds``.
That is my opinion.
GT,
Is there a pattern here? People, initially, supporting Mush. in Pakistan; support for fundamentalists almost everywhere and support for judicial fundamentalism especially in India. Can we learn something from this?
Of-course there`s a pattern in this.
Both the instances which you mentioned i.e. people imploring judiciary or welcoming military coups, most recent in Thailand, is because democracy doesn`t work. Period. People want a higher morality which mere politicians cannot deliver. There are too many pressures on them for votes.
That is what Islam has been saying all along. The ruler can be the only one ``who is the best in Deeds``.
That is my opinion.
#155 Posted by mohar11 on September 23, 2006 10:23:44 am
Re: # 153
[...That is my opinion. ..]
and your opinion sucks...:)... If politicians are bad - then people don`t have to vote for them... they have a choice...
It`s not about ``higher morality``... paki military has proved to be a greater evil than any politician could ever be... yet you pakis welcome them - that`s because you pakis have always welcomed such people througout history... it has nothing to do with morality...
Be as that may - supporting judicial ``activism`` is whole different thing than supporting a coup... because judiciary is very much the part of democratic setup... they are one pillar imprtant of the whole setup... they have a legitimate case to step in when required... that`s what is checks and balances all about... judiciary activism strengthens democracy by filling the void...
Military is not part of the democratic setup - it subverts democracy rather than strengthening it...
Does your islamic brain get it?... :)
[...That is my opinion. ..]
and your opinion sucks...:)... If politicians are bad - then people don`t have to vote for them... they have a choice...
It`s not about ``higher morality``... paki military has proved to be a greater evil than any politician could ever be... yet you pakis welcome them - that`s because you pakis have always welcomed such people througout history... it has nothing to do with morality...
Be as that may - supporting judicial ``activism`` is whole different thing than supporting a coup... because judiciary is very much the part of democratic setup... they are one pillar imprtant of the whole setup... they have a legitimate case to step in when required... that`s what is checks and balances all about... judiciary activism strengthens democracy by filling the void...
Military is not part of the democratic setup - it subverts democracy rather than strengthening it...
Does your islamic brain get it?... :)
#152 Posted by mohar11 on September 23, 2006 7:48:23 am
Delhi`s air is breathable now because of the judges`s timely intervention... Supreme Court has stepped in where other institutions have failed... it`s not judicial fundamentalism - it`s common sense...
This police reform order is another example where the Supreme Court is yet again stepping in to do the right thing where the parliament[citadel of fools] has failed...
This police reform order is another example where the Supreme Court is yet again stepping in to do the right thing where the parliament[citadel of fools] has failed...
#150 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 10:40:30 pm
#149 by masadi
US pursuit of `Manifest Destiny` over South America was given formal sanction through the Monroe Doctrine which has since functioned as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the nations of the Americas. The 30 military interventions and 47 covert or indirect operations in Latin America since 1846 should therefore come as no surprise.
US pursuit of `Manifest Destiny` over South America was given formal sanction through the Monroe Doctrine which has since functioned as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the nations of the Americas. The 30 military interventions and 47 covert or indirect operations in Latin America since 1846 should therefore come as no surprise.
#149 Posted by masadi on September 22, 2006 9:37:46 pm
# 146 aslam 644 writes <<< a nation that was built on genocide and slavery, an exemplar nation? >>>
Very true observation, I would add to this the long tradition of US imperialism in the period leading upto the 2nd WW, it is for this reason that I also suggested in my earlier post that you cannot seperate US corporate economic interests from its political when a long tradition of imperialism in Latin America, the Philippines etc tells us that they went hand in hand, let me quote Howard Zinn whose book, ``A People`s History of the United States``, I would recommend,
``“The U.S. had instigated a war with Mexico and taken over half that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments and right of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had opened Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats…It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years… It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the “independent” state of Panama in order to build and control the canal. It sent 5000 Marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution and kept forces there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years… Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America. Just before World War 1 ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia and remained there until early 1920. Five thousand more troops landed at Archangel, another Russian port…”.(Zinn 1995:399-400)
And finally, I would like to point to the institutional structure that has emerged post WW2 in the US, it is not liberal vs conservative of tweedle dee versus tweedle dumb-ass (Bush), but this structure that involves militarism, a permanent war economy and entrenched elites in the political military and economic that determines the near uniform foreign and domestic policies of the US. Anyone with wacky ideas like equal distribution of wealth, a globally equalized minimum wage etc never makes it through the corridors of power. This country was never, is not and will never be an ``ideal`` given humanitarian criteria, it`s past actions have been just as bad as its current ones though its ability to cause potential destruction has widely increased and what little gains the people made are being managed out of existence because of the concentration of wealth and power that this structure now offers the elite.
Very true observation, I would add to this the long tradition of US imperialism in the period leading upto the 2nd WW, it is for this reason that I also suggested in my earlier post that you cannot seperate US corporate economic interests from its political when a long tradition of imperialism in Latin America, the Philippines etc tells us that they went hand in hand, let me quote Howard Zinn whose book, ``A People`s History of the United States``, I would recommend,
``“The U.S. had instigated a war with Mexico and taken over half that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments and right of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had opened Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats…It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years… It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the “independent” state of Panama in order to build and control the canal. It sent 5000 Marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution and kept forces there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years… Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America. Just before World War 1 ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia and remained there until early 1920. Five thousand more troops landed at Archangel, another Russian port…”.(Zinn 1995:399-400)
And finally, I would like to point to the institutional structure that has emerged post WW2 in the US, it is not liberal vs conservative of tweedle dee versus tweedle dumb-ass (Bush), but this structure that involves militarism, a permanent war economy and entrenched elites in the political military and economic that determines the near uniform foreign and domestic policies of the US. Anyone with wacky ideas like equal distribution of wealth, a globally equalized minimum wage etc never makes it through the corridors of power. This country was never, is not and will never be an ``ideal`` given humanitarian criteria, it`s past actions have been just as bad as its current ones though its ability to cause potential destruction has widely increased and what little gains the people made are being managed out of existence because of the concentration of wealth and power that this structure now offers the elite.
#148 Posted by GT on September 22, 2006 7:45:21 pm
Mohammad Gill:
Allow me to use your board to bring up a subject which has been bothering me for sometime. SR talked about liberty slipping in the US. Nevertheless, it is the executive and the legislature which is doing it. If people want to change things they can - through their vote. However, in India something else is happening. The Supreme Court has started directing the legislature through what is commonly being termed in India as `judicial activism`. Today, the newspapers reported that it has asked for tenure in police services. This is the work of the legislature not the judiciary! But this is not what scares me. What scares me is the fact that the `judicial activism` is widely supported by the chattering classes. They sure have a reason, given the widespread corruption in our legislating bodies. But what they forget is that the judiciary is not elected. Furthermore, once the preceedent is set what will stop corrupt or authoritarian judges? It puzzles me when I see people willing to compromise on institutions which secure their freedom for myopic bliss. Is there a pattern here? People, initially, supporting Mush. in Pakistan; support for fundamentalists almost everywhere and support for judicial fundamentalism especially in India. Can we learn something from this? Is there a common pattern? Why do people readily give up on their freedoms to ensure short-term bliss?
Zeemax and SR, I am particularly interested in your take on the above stated broad questions (you do not have to deal with the Indian judiciary). I already know the answers of masadi, Urstruly and HP (I think). I would also like to know what jang, stuka, arjun_m and sadna think about this (specific to the Indian judiciary as well as broadly). Finally, I presume that some of these questions might have motivated Gill sahib to write this article. Hence, it would be very nice if Gill sahib obliges to answer.
Allow me to use your board to bring up a subject which has been bothering me for sometime. SR talked about liberty slipping in the US. Nevertheless, it is the executive and the legislature which is doing it. If people want to change things they can - through their vote. However, in India something else is happening. The Supreme Court has started directing the legislature through what is commonly being termed in India as `judicial activism`. Today, the newspapers reported that it has asked for tenure in police services. This is the work of the legislature not the judiciary! But this is not what scares me. What scares me is the fact that the `judicial activism` is widely supported by the chattering classes. They sure have a reason, given the widespread corruption in our legislating bodies. But what they forget is that the judiciary is not elected. Furthermore, once the preceedent is set what will stop corrupt or authoritarian judges? It puzzles me when I see people willing to compromise on institutions which secure their freedom for myopic bliss. Is there a pattern here? People, initially, supporting Mush. in Pakistan; support for fundamentalists almost everywhere and support for judicial fundamentalism especially in India. Can we learn something from this? Is there a common pattern? Why do people readily give up on their freedoms to ensure short-term bliss?
Zeemax and SR, I am particularly interested in your take on the above stated broad questions (you do not have to deal with the Indian judiciary). I already know the answers of masadi, Urstruly and HP (I think). I would also like to know what jang, stuka, arjun_m and sadna think about this (specific to the Indian judiciary as well as broadly). Finally, I presume that some of these questions might have motivated Gill sahib to write this article. Hence, it would be very nice if Gill sahib obliges to answer.
#151 Posted by mohar11 on September 23, 2006 7:42:48 am
Re: # 148 GT
[...But what they forget is that the judiciary is not elected. Furthermore, once the preceedent is set what will stop corrupt or authoritarian judges?...]
you think the corrupt and ``authoritarian`` judges someday will roll the tanks and take over the country?....
Don`t be scared unncessarily... if judges step over the boundary - they can be removed by legislature or the President... their rulings could be vacated by the legislature any time... their activism gets support because it makes sense... if they overstep - there will be no support for them... and judges know that... Finally, judges don`t command no army - no matter how ``authoritarian`` they want to be - they have no means to do it...
In particular - this order on police reform makes perfect sense... this has been on the debate for quite sometime and it`s absolutely necessary... whether it comes via an order of judiciary or legislature - it don`t matter... it has to be done...
So now go sleep, have sweet dreams... don`t be scared of ``authoritarian`` judges taking over the world...:)
[...But what they forget is that the judiciary is not elected. Furthermore, once the preceedent is set what will stop corrupt or authoritarian judges?...]
you think the corrupt and ``authoritarian`` judges someday will roll the tanks and take over the country?....
Don`t be scared unncessarily... if judges step over the boundary - they can be removed by legislature or the President... their rulings could be vacated by the legislature any time... their activism gets support because it makes sense... if they overstep - there will be no support for them... and judges know that... Finally, judges don`t command no army - no matter how ``authoritarian`` they want to be - they have no means to do it...
In particular - this order on police reform makes perfect sense... this has been on the debate for quite sometime and it`s absolutely necessary... whether it comes via an order of judiciary or legislature - it don`t matter... it has to be done...
So now go sleep, have sweet dreams... don`t be scared of ``authoritarian`` judges taking over the world...:)
#147 Posted by echoboom on September 22, 2006 12:53:35 pm
Waste not your time and energy on a has-been, or really never was!
The United Satan is on its way to the dustbin of history ..and geography as well.
Dump the US Dollars before it is toooooooooooo Late! THe Dollar Tsunami is on its way and gold is in, would be in , and on its wake is the e-dinar...the currency of choice, the SIKKA of Islam which will be stamped on every heart mind and wallet of the smart ones.
Waste not your time on the economies of waste, pollution, disaster and manufactured diseases. Deeducate yourself , for pretty soon new learnings have to be learnt, new paradigms have to inculcated and and an International order would soon be emerging which be most aligned in its non-alignment, most arrayed in its disarraying & dishevveling of the United Satan & the lapdog shatans.
Hasten the demise of the devil in the guise of human-rights, democracy, and prosperity.
The one-eyed-Dajjaal has been spotted! It smelled of Sulphur after it had left the UN building; as Chavez correctly pointed out.
And the Qura`aan said: `` Iza`jaa`a Nasrullah min Fateh Quareeb``
``and when Allah`s help came, the victory came near them.
``aur hubb aan pohnchee Allah kee madad, toa jeet nazdeek hee hai.``
Celebrate, not whine; Every moment we are getting closer and closer to the dream the muslims see every spare moment in their lives.
``Kitaab-i Millat-i Baizaa kee phirr sheeraaza bUndee hai
yeh shaak-i Haashmi krnay ko hai phir brG O bUr paidaa``
tr:
The book of the nation of Islam, torn & tattered , is being recollated & rebound
This dried twig of the Hashmis is again turning green;sprouting leaves & buds.
MashaAllah.
A Shiite Muslim Sheikh watching
as Hezbollahsupporters wave flags
during a `divine victory` rally
in Beirut on Friday. (AP)
Nasrallah: No army can force Hezbollah to disarm
In his first public appearance since the start of his group`s war with Israel, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Friday that ``no army in the world`` would be able to disarm his group, a key demand of a United Nations cease-fire resolution that ended the 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
Nasrallah also said his group still has more than 20,000 rockets, and called for a new government to be installed in Lebanon.
Some 500,000 people, mostly Shiite Muslims, turned out for a rally in a bombed-out suburb of Beirut to celebrate Hezbollah`s ``divine victory`` in the war.
Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mark Regev said Hezbollah is spitting in the face of the international community by refusing to disarm.
``Nasrallah is challenging not only the government of Lebanon, but the entire international community,`` Regev said. ``The international community can`t afford to have this Iranian-funded extremist spit in the face of the organized community of nations.``
Regev noted that according to the UN cease-fire resolution, Hezbollah ``shouldn`t have any rockets.``
``The resistance today, pay attention...has more than 20,000 rockets,`` Nasrallah told the crowd.
``The current government is unable to protect Lebanon, or to reconstruct Lebanon or to unify Lebanon,`` he said, calling for a new ``national unity government``.
Nasrallah said Hezbollah emerged from the war stronger than it had been before it. ``(It) has recovered all its organizational and military capabilities,`` he said. ``It is stronger than it was before July 12.``
``There is no army in the world that can [force us] to drop our weapons from our hands, from our grip,`` he added. ``Today we celebrate a great divine, historic and strategic victory.``
The huge turnout in a country of just four million was a gesture of defiance to Israel but also marked a challenge to the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Hezbollah has two ministers in the cabinet, but most cabinet members oppose the group`s alliances with Syria and Iran.
Nasrallah said he had decided to appear at the rally despite threats to his life.
``They said that this square would be bombed and this stage would be destroyed to frighten the people and keep them away,`` he said.
Since the war, Israeli officials have said they would continue to target Hizbollah`s leadership but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert refused to comment on Thursday on whether Israel would try to kill Nasrallah if he appeared at the rally.
Nasrallah debated with his aides until 30 minutes before the rally, about whether to attend. ``But my heart, mind and soul did not allow me to address you from afar,`` he said.
``You are proving by attending this victory celebration that you are more courageous than on July 12 and August 14,`` he said, referring to the beginning and end of the month-long war.
The crowd roared with cheers as Nasrallah appeared waving to the crowd, flanked by his bodyguards as an announcer said ``The leader has arrived.``
The Hezbollah leader had been in hiding since July 12 when the group`s cross-border capture of Israel Defense Forces reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and killing of eight more troops sparked the war.
Nasrallah was expected to outline ``prospects for the next stage in Lebanon`` and address international calls for his group`s disarmament, as well as the deployment of UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon, which for years has been controlled by the militant group, Hezbollah spokesman Hussein Rahhal said Friday.
The UN-brokered cease-fire calls for Hezbollah to eventually be stripped of its weapons, but Nasrallah has so far been defiant.
Roads toward Lebanon`s capital were packed with cars and buses waving Hezbollah flags Friday, hours before what was billed as the country`s largest rally to showcase the group`s insistence that it won`t disarm. Hundreds of Hezbollah supporters from across south Lebanon began marching toward Beirut a day earlier.
Two hours before the rally, thousands of people had already arrived at the site on foot, in buses and in cars, chanting Nasrallah`s name and waving Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.
In the southern port city of Tyre, some 200 people, including veiled Shiite Muslim women clad in black and holding their children, boarded large minivans bound for Beirut.
Hezbollah`s Al-Manar television said thousands of buses, minivans and cars were streaming toward Beirut from the south and the eastern Bekaa Valley. Members of Christian parties and pro-Syrian groups in northern Lebanon were also traveling to the capital to participate in the rally, the broadcast said.
Al-Manar said late Thursday that Friday`s rally would be ``the biggest referendum on the resistance choice.`` It said ``waves of humans`` would pour into the bombed-out southern suburbs of Beirut to support the guerrillas.
During the war, Israel threatened to kill Nasrallah. An attempt to assassinate him now was considered unlikely since it would risk plunging the region back into conflict. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would not say in comments published Thursday whether Nasrallah remained a target.
The gathering is intended as a show of strength by Hezbollah at a time of increased friction with the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Butros Harb, a lawmaker who supports Saniora`s government, said Hezbollah`s refusal to disarm was unacceptable and expressed concern about the rally.
``We can`t have an illegal army at the heart of our state, all weapons must be held by the Lebanese government,`` he said.
At the rally site in south Beirut, workers set up tens of thousands of white plastic chairs facing a podium and organizers prepared tens of thousands of banners and flags. Past Hezbollah rallies have drawn up to 800,000 people.
Hezbollah, whose popularity among Shiites soared after it withstood weeks of punishing Israeli bombardment and kept up a barrage of rockets into northern Israel, has refused to give up its weapons.
In a television interview last week, Nasrallah boasted that his armed fighters were still on the border with Israel.
The United Satan is on its way to the dustbin of history ..and geography as well.
Dump the US Dollars before it is toooooooooooo Late! THe Dollar Tsunami is on its way and gold is in, would be in , and on its wake is the e-dinar...the currency of choice, the SIKKA of Islam which will be stamped on every heart mind and wallet of the smart ones.
Waste not your time on the economies of waste, pollution, disaster and manufactured diseases. Deeducate yourself , for pretty soon new learnings have to be learnt, new paradigms have to inculcated and and an International order would soon be emerging which be most aligned in its non-alignment, most arrayed in its disarraying & dishevveling of the United Satan & the lapdog shatans.
Hasten the demise of the devil in the guise of human-rights, democracy, and prosperity.
The one-eyed-Dajjaal has been spotted! It smelled of Sulphur after it had left the UN building; as Chavez correctly pointed out.
And the Qura`aan said: `` Iza`jaa`a Nasrullah min Fateh Quareeb``
``and when Allah`s help came, the victory came near them.
``aur hubb aan pohnchee Allah kee madad, toa jeet nazdeek hee hai.``
Celebrate, not whine; Every moment we are getting closer and closer to the dream the muslims see every spare moment in their lives.
``Kitaab-i Millat-i Baizaa kee phirr sheeraaza bUndee hai
yeh shaak-i Haashmi krnay ko hai phir brG O bUr paidaa``
tr:
The book of the nation of Islam, torn & tattered , is being recollated & rebound
This dried twig of the Hashmis is again turning green;sprouting leaves & buds.
MashaAllah.
A Shiite Muslim Sheikh watching
as Hezbollahsupporters wave flags
during a `divine victory` rally
in Beirut on Friday. (AP)
Nasrallah: No army can force Hezbollah to disarm
In his first public appearance since the start of his group`s war with Israel, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Friday that ``no army in the world`` would be able to disarm his group, a key demand of a United Nations cease-fire resolution that ended the 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
Nasrallah also said his group still has more than 20,000 rockets, and called for a new government to be installed in Lebanon.
Some 500,000 people, mostly Shiite Muslims, turned out for a rally in a bombed-out suburb of Beirut to celebrate Hezbollah`s ``divine victory`` in the war.
Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mark Regev said Hezbollah is spitting in the face of the international community by refusing to disarm.
``Nasrallah is challenging not only the government of Lebanon, but the entire international community,`` Regev said. ``The international community can`t afford to have this Iranian-funded extremist spit in the face of the organized community of nations.``
Regev noted that according to the UN cease-fire resolution, Hezbollah ``shouldn`t have any rockets.``
``The resistance today, pay attention...has more than 20,000 rockets,`` Nasrallah told the crowd.
``The current government is unable to protect Lebanon, or to reconstruct Lebanon or to unify Lebanon,`` he said, calling for a new ``national unity government``.
Nasrallah said Hezbollah emerged from the war stronger than it had been before it. ``(It) has recovered all its organizational and military capabilities,`` he said. ``It is stronger than it was before July 12.``
``There is no army in the world that can [force us] to drop our weapons from our hands, from our grip,`` he added. ``Today we celebrate a great divine, historic and strategic victory.``
The huge turnout in a country of just four million was a gesture of defiance to Israel but also marked a challenge to the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Hezbollah has two ministers in the cabinet, but most cabinet members oppose the group`s alliances with Syria and Iran.
Nasrallah said he had decided to appear at the rally despite threats to his life.
``They said that this square would be bombed and this stage would be destroyed to frighten the people and keep them away,`` he said.
Since the war, Israeli officials have said they would continue to target Hizbollah`s leadership but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert refused to comment on Thursday on whether Israel would try to kill Nasrallah if he appeared at the rally.
Nasrallah debated with his aides until 30 minutes before the rally, about whether to attend. ``But my heart, mind and soul did not allow me to address you from afar,`` he said.
``You are proving by attending this victory celebration that you are more courageous than on July 12 and August 14,`` he said, referring to the beginning and end of the month-long war.
The crowd roared with cheers as Nasrallah appeared waving to the crowd, flanked by his bodyguards as an announcer said ``The leader has arrived.``
The Hezbollah leader had been in hiding since July 12 when the group`s cross-border capture of Israel Defense Forces reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and killing of eight more troops sparked the war.
Nasrallah was expected to outline ``prospects for the next stage in Lebanon`` and address international calls for his group`s disarmament, as well as the deployment of UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon, which for years has been controlled by the militant group, Hezbollah spokesman Hussein Rahhal said Friday.
The UN-brokered cease-fire calls for Hezbollah to eventually be stripped of its weapons, but Nasrallah has so far been defiant.
Roads toward Lebanon`s capital were packed with cars and buses waving Hezbollah flags Friday, hours before what was billed as the country`s largest rally to showcase the group`s insistence that it won`t disarm. Hundreds of Hezbollah supporters from across south Lebanon began marching toward Beirut a day earlier.
Two hours before the rally, thousands of people had already arrived at the site on foot, in buses and in cars, chanting Nasrallah`s name and waving Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.
In the southern port city of Tyre, some 200 people, including veiled Shiite Muslim women clad in black and holding their children, boarded large minivans bound for Beirut.
Hezbollah`s Al-Manar television said thousands of buses, minivans and cars were streaming toward Beirut from the south and the eastern Bekaa Valley. Members of Christian parties and pro-Syrian groups in northern Lebanon were also traveling to the capital to participate in the rally, the broadcast said.
Al-Manar said late Thursday that Friday`s rally would be ``the biggest referendum on the resistance choice.`` It said ``waves of humans`` would pour into the bombed-out southern suburbs of Beirut to support the guerrillas.
During the war, Israel threatened to kill Nasrallah. An attempt to assassinate him now was considered unlikely since it would risk plunging the region back into conflict. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would not say in comments published Thursday whether Nasrallah remained a target.
The gathering is intended as a show of strength by Hezbollah at a time of increased friction with the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Butros Harb, a lawmaker who supports Saniora`s government, said Hezbollah`s refusal to disarm was unacceptable and expressed concern about the rally.
``We can`t have an illegal army at the heart of our state, all weapons must be held by the Lebanese government,`` he said.
At the rally site in south Beirut, workers set up tens of thousands of white plastic chairs facing a podium and organizers prepared tens of thousands of banners and flags. Past Hezbollah rallies have drawn up to 800,000 people.
Hezbollah, whose popularity among Shiites soared after it withstood weeks of punishing Israeli bombardment and kept up a barrage of rockets into northern Israel, has refused to give up its weapons.
In a television interview last week, Nasrallah boasted that his armed fighters were still on the border with Israel.
#146 Posted by aslam644 on September 22, 2006 11:54:08 am
#142 by SR on September 22, 2006 9:19am PT
On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.
a nation that was built on genocide and slavery, an exemplar nation?.
On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.
a nation that was built on genocide and slavery, an exemplar nation?.
#145 Posted by bulleya on September 22, 2006 11:32:59 am
SR #142: interesting post.....quite accurate, as well in my opinion.....i think, however, there is one more aspect involved, in addition to power. it is related more to the social aspects......
the usa, over the past few decades has had a conservative revolution.........this has been well planned out and is the subject of many books.....while the rest of the west is getting more and more liberal and less and less religious, the usa is the only country, in the west, to be rapidly going in the other direction........much like it is extremly difficult for conservatives to get elected in canada (they are in now, due to massive corruption scandals of liberals), it is very difficult for liberals to be elected in the usa....this conservative movement reached its peak, during the end of the clinton era.........it is marked by the following major political events.........
1. election of ronald reagan: by the end of the ronald reagan term, conservatives were firmly on their way to controlling us power centers. the society was rapidly moving towards religion, evangelicalism, and conservatism.....reagan had a phenomenally successful second election and trounced his democratic opponent...........
2. bush sr. was elected and the executive was firmly in conservative control....newt gengrich, rush limbaugh, rumsfeld, cheney, ralph reed, pat robertson etc. were well on their way to be highly influential figures.......
3. it took an unknown extremely brilliant politician like bill clinton, to appear from nowhere, and put some sort of a bump in the conservative/religious rise of politics in the usa.........however that bump was limited........every politician is not a clinton (including hillary)......
the social movement had reached such a stage that even extremely competent liberal politicians could not get elected from the north. the only hope of success for liberals was to have a candidate from the south. i believe john kennedy was the last liberal to be elected from the north. clinton was from arkansas, carter from georgia and johnson from texas......
while republicans from anywhere could get elected. reagan was from liberal california......guliani, a possible future candidate is from liberal new york.....by the end of the clinton term, the whole south of usa was red........the liberals were surviving politically only because they would always win in the two giant states: new york and california.........
4. the conservative revolution was now complete........the next many decades should have seen the very conservative wing of the republican party dominate the legislature......it was already dominating the executive.......and over time it would move in judges to dominate the judiciary also............
socially, around 25% of the usa voters were evangelical christians, and 40% were christian conservatives.........even liberals had to publicly carry around a bible in one hand and a gun in another to get elected..........preachers and pastors had huge political influence over who would reach the congress and the white house..........totally different from any other country in the west..........
5. however this revolution went too far.........it became impossible for anyone in the republican party to get elected, if he wasn`t totally to the right politically and religiously. this is why a very medoicre individual like bush II was able to defeat a far more accomplished mccain.........and why a far more accomplished and successful powell was fired while a totally unsuccessful cheney has been maintained........
6. enter bush II: the conservative hold was so strong that mediocre bush II defeated a highly successfull all-american vice president like gore......that was the death knell for the liberals, i.e. even succesfull liberals with excellent track records could be defeated by incompetent conservatives........the reason was simple: the right had to only get around 20% of the vote........it already had the remaining 30% through evangelicals and christian consertives........
7. however, bush II turned out to be a nightmare for the conservative movement........committing one blunder after another.........even though he had the golden opportunities given to him by 9/11.........his blunders, both domestically and externally (not to mention grammatically) were so awesome that he brought the usa to a point where it has lost one war (iraq) is starting to lose another (afghanistan), has a gigantic debt, a sinking dollar (not totally his fault), and a deeply divided populace, which is directionless.........not to mention the fact that is hugely disliked in the east and the west..........
8. even the great conservative movement may be unable to survive a bush II. this is where the current congressional elections come in.......bush II was able to survive the presidential elections, (once again against a far more experienced and successful war hero candidate in the form of kerry) thereby highlightinng the power of the conservatives.........however, will even the powerful conservative/religious revolution be able to survive the bush blunders, in the coming election?...........let`s see......
needless to say, bush II in eight years may have done what should have been impossible to do, i.e. drowned a huge social movement which had completely taken over the usa........by this time, the conservatives and religious right should have been well on their way to controlling the executive, legislature and judiciary for the next many decades..........yet they find themselves in a political fight, in a country that is overwhelmingly socially on their side...........
the usa, over the past few decades has had a conservative revolution.........this has been well planned out and is the subject of many books.....while the rest of the west is getting more and more liberal and less and less religious, the usa is the only country, in the west, to be rapidly going in the other direction........much like it is extremly difficult for conservatives to get elected in canada (they are in now, due to massive corruption scandals of liberals), it is very difficult for liberals to be elected in the usa....this conservative movement reached its peak, during the end of the clinton era.........it is marked by the following major political events.........
1. election of ronald reagan: by the end of the ronald reagan term, conservatives were firmly on their way to controlling us power centers. the society was rapidly moving towards religion, evangelicalism, and conservatism.....reagan had a phenomenally successful second election and trounced his democratic opponent...........
2. bush sr. was elected and the executive was firmly in conservative control....newt gengrich, rush limbaugh, rumsfeld, cheney, ralph reed, pat robertson etc. were well on their way to be highly influential figures.......
3. it took an unknown extremely brilliant politician like bill clinton, to appear from nowhere, and put some sort of a bump in the conservative/religious rise of politics in the usa.........however that bump was limited........every politician is not a clinton (including hillary)......
the social movement had reached such a stage that even extremely competent liberal politicians could not get elected from the north. the only hope of success for liberals was to have a candidate from the south. i believe john kennedy was the last liberal to be elected from the north. clinton was from arkansas, carter from georgia and johnson from texas......
while republicans from anywhere could get elected. reagan was from liberal california......guliani, a possible future candidate is from liberal new york.....by the end of the clinton term, the whole south of usa was red........the liberals were surviving politically only because they would always win in the two giant states: new york and california.........
4. the conservative revolution was now complete........the next many decades should have seen the very conservative wing of the republican party dominate the legislature......it was already dominating the executive.......and over time it would move in judges to dominate the judiciary also............
socially, around 25% of the usa voters were evangelical christians, and 40% were christian conservatives.........even liberals had to publicly carry around a bible in one hand and a gun in another to get elected..........preachers and pastors had huge political influence over who would reach the congress and the white house..........totally different from any other country in the west..........
5. however this revolution went too far.........it became impossible for anyone in the republican party to get elected, if he wasn`t totally to the right politically and religiously. this is why a very medoicre individual like bush II was able to defeat a far more accomplished mccain.........and why a far more accomplished and successful powell was fired while a totally unsuccessful cheney has been maintained........
6. enter bush II: the conservative hold was so strong that mediocre bush II defeated a highly successfull all-american vice president like gore......that was the death knell for the liberals, i.e. even succesfull liberals with excellent track records could be defeated by incompetent conservatives........the reason was simple: the right had to only get around 20% of the vote........it already had the remaining 30% through evangelicals and christian consertives........
7. however, bush II turned out to be a nightmare for the conservative movement........committing one blunder after another.........even though he had the golden opportunities given to him by 9/11.........his blunders, both domestically and externally (not to mention grammatically) were so awesome that he brought the usa to a point where it has lost one war (iraq) is starting to lose another (afghanistan), has a gigantic debt, a sinking dollar (not totally his fault), and a deeply divided populace, which is directionless.........not to mention the fact that is hugely disliked in the east and the west..........
8. even the great conservative movement may be unable to survive a bush II. this is where the current congressional elections come in.......bush II was able to survive the presidential elections, (once again against a far more experienced and successful war hero candidate in the form of kerry) thereby highlightinng the power of the conservatives.........however, will even the powerful conservative/religious revolution be able to survive the bush blunders, in the coming election?...........let`s see......
needless to say, bush II in eight years may have done what should have been impossible to do, i.e. drowned a huge social movement which had completely taken over the usa........by this time, the conservatives and religious right should have been well on their way to controlling the executive, legislature and judiciary for the next many decades..........yet they find themselves in a political fight, in a country that is overwhelmingly socially on their side...........
#144 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 9:49:18 am
SR#142,
Thanks for this informative post.
On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.
It`s upto them, isn`t it? Let`s see what they decide.
Thanks for this informative post.
On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.
It`s upto them, isn`t it? Let`s see what they decide.
#143 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 9:43:52 am
#141 by aquaris
Actually, Khan of Kalat is right. Technically.
Actually, Khan of Kalat is right. Technically.
#142 Posted by SR on September 22, 2006 9:19:20 am
Gill sahib,
The theme of your article has been somewhat side-stepped with our usual ``Clash of Civilizations`` arguments peppered with name calling and such. I didn`t get around to it earlier but wanted to add some comments about what I believe is of historic significance for the US body politic, in keeping with your title of Revolt in Paradise.
The upcoming US Congressional elections will be a watershed. It will decide whether the US can be returned to its former historical Constitutional foundation or whether it will slide further into full-scale Executive Tyranny.
In the nineteenth century, it was well understood that the USA was a Constitutional Republic. It was a Republic composed of a UNION of American States which had delegated some of their own powers and responsibilities to the new Federal Government. These delegated powers were clearly numerated, i.e. they were all specifically and precisely defined. There were only a certain number of powers so delegated. The political emphasis was on the STATES. This was the real foundation of the US federal system. Until the early 20th century, the State Legislatures chose the people who they wanted to send to Congress as their Senators. That, in effect, turned the US Senate into a College of Ambassadors from the several States in the Union.
The only ``democratic`` component of the early US Constitution existed in the House of Representatives. To ensure that the new Federal government was kept small, it was specified in the new Constitution that spending bills could only be originated in the House. The ``hope`` here was that Members of the House would hesitate to vote for higher taxes because such an act would get them voted out of office. Both Houses of Congress had to agree to any tax. The President had the power of Veto. It was the ability of Congress, in joint action, to overturn a veto, which ensured that the President in the final instance had to comply with the LEGISLATIVE power. This made the Executive power somewhat secondary.
The US presidency itself was a rather uninteresting political office. It could enact no laws of its own nor could it raise any taxes on its own. The laws enacted by Congress are given to the President to, as the Constitution says, ``faithfully execute``. The President was voted the money by Congress with which to give effect to the laws enacted by Congress. The political and Constitutional fact was that a President had to rely on Congress for both the money as well as the laws enacted by it before acting at all.
If either Congress or the Presidency - or both acting in collusion - tried to circumvent the Constitution, the Judicial Branch in the form of the Supreme Court stood as the third and CO-EQUAL branch of government. Its power lay in its ability to find and declare that any such acts were UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The benefit of such a system was supposed to be, and for a while actually was, LIMITED government with LIMITED powers resulting in Individual Freedom and Liberty.
Apart from the deep wound of slavery in the US, which Britain had abolished years earlier by the peaceful moral suasion of Wilberforce, never in all human history had a nation been as free as the USA. It was for good reason that the US was called: The Last Best Hope For All Mankind.
The November 7 Congressional elections are, in principle, about political POWER not about party. The main issue in this election is NOT being discussed. This issue is whether political power in the United States is going to be unlimited - or limited. If it is to be the former, then the last best hope for all mankind is dead. The Republic is over, replaced by an Absolute National Government. If it is to be ``limited`` government, then the States in the Union still have a chance. Here it does not matter that it is the Republicans who hold both of the Houses of Congress and the White House. The issue would have been the same had it been the Democrats in this position. The political direction of the United States has been clear for nearly a century. It has taken this long to get to where the US is today only because of the moral and political opposition of the American people. As more and more American cease to be citizens and gradually become only consumers the force of their opposition to tyranny weakens to the point it has reached today.
If one central political truth in the US has been proven over the last thirty odd years, it is that neither of the two main political parties can be trusted to hold power in both Houses of Congress AND in the White House. Whenever this has happened, both parties have expanded political power with no mercy, leaving an incoming administration with these new powers in hand. Having gained office, the newly arrived administration or executive took no steps whatsoever to diminish such power. Instead, they proceeded to expand the political power even further on their own.
All political power should be looked at as a CLUB. A club with which to beat men into submission. After all, government is always force - coercive force.
The sole issues are the size of the club and who wields it. At present, there is nothing inside the US, no cohesive political force, strong enough to gain votes in Congress with the purpose of reducing the size of the political club and thereby curbing the power of government. That reduces the central political issue in November to whose hands are on the club. It is these hands on the club which have to be pried off again and again and again, with the end purpose that neither party gains BOTH the White House and both Houses of Congress, if for no other purpose than to keep power divided. In present circumstances, establishing the principle that ``you get ONE term only`` is the stand behind which a campaign can be rolled out to begin to CURTAIL the power of government - to shrink the size of the club.
This Congressional election will be one of America`s most grim, ugly and brutal. Any and all means and methods which could conceivably make it possible for them to hold on to both houses of Congress will be used by the White House and the Republican Party itself. The House of Representatives is the political centre of this contest. This is because the House is the only place where impeachment can be launched and there are plenty of grounds for this. The best and the most direct impeachable offense is the illegal wire tapping which the Bush Administration has had the NSA and other agencies engage in.
President Bush himself, when caught red handed, has tried to brazen it out. He has admitted nineteen times (19) in public and on the record that he chose to act against the standing law.
One Is Enough. One felony, that is. The felony which Mr Bush has admitted to carries a ten-year jail term. Committing ANY felony is full grounds for impeachment with no ifs and buts about it. Directing others (in the NSA etc) to do so only compounds the offense. That is a CONSPIRACY, which is abundant impeachment grounds. But the Department of Justice is under the Executive Branch and the Republicans hold a majority in the House, so it is no wonder that nothing has happened. Something can happen in the House of Representatives, but only if the House changes hands on November 7.
If that is what lies ahead, the Bush Administration is facing a stupendous problem. If the House is lost, the chairmanships of House Committees also change hands. They have full subpoena powers. They can call any witnesses they want, swear them in, and ask them anything they want. The only thing that protects such witnesses is the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. But in President Bush`s own case there is no such protection. His nineteen public statements that he broke the law convict him. Mr Bush has not stopped there. Among many other things, he has directed the US Armed Forces to take actions in breach of the Geneva Conventions. The Senate, however, has ratified these, making them part of the laws of the US. No matter, Mr Bush`s public statements convict him. That is why holding the House is a desperate matter.
The Republican campaign plan, as led by Mr Karl Rove, is already clear. It is a plan to fight solely in each electoral district. Mr Rove plans his ``normal`` method of full force character assassination and the destruction of the reputation of the opponent in the district. The campaign is to be confined to the ``local level`` because no Republican wants to be seen as being close to President Bush or to answer questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the Democrat side, the campaign plans are less clear. They seem to revolve around claims that President Bush is a failed war leader and that he is losing his global war against terror. The Democrats seem to have chosen to run on general themes, not local ones.
Pity the American public. The American people are going to be subjected to an unrelenting barrage of claims from both sides. But one huge political point ought by now to be at least partially clear to most Americans. The full surveillance state exists and is active inside these United States. If their knowledge were to go far enough in historical terms, most Americans would know that the police state always follows after the surveillance state has arrived. The central issue before all Americans is POWER - political power versus the Individual Freedoms and Liberties they once had. The people presently in power will do anything and say anything to stay in power. An ``October surprise`` therefore, should not be ruled out as a possibility, its purpose being to stampede many Americans into the political arms of those now in power - to keep power in their hands.
On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.
The theme of your article has been somewhat side-stepped with our usual ``Clash of Civilizations`` arguments peppered with name calling and such. I didn`t get around to it earlier but wanted to add some comments about what I believe is of historic significance for the US body politic, in keeping with your title of Revolt in Paradise.
The upcoming US Congressional elections will be a watershed. It will decide whether the US can be returned to its former historical Constitutional foundation or whether it will slide further into full-scale Executive Tyranny.
In the nineteenth century, it was well understood that the USA was a Constitutional Republic. It was a Republic composed of a UNION of American States which had delegated some of their own powers and responsibilities to the new Federal Government. These delegated powers were clearly numerated, i.e. they were all specifically and precisely defined. There were only a certain number of powers so delegated. The political emphasis was on the STATES. This was the real foundation of the US federal system. Until the early 20th century, the State Legislatures chose the people who they wanted to send to Congress as their Senators. That, in effect, turned the US Senate into a College of Ambassadors from the several States in the Union.
The only ``democratic`` component of the early US Constitution existed in the House of Representatives. To ensure that the new Federal government was kept small, it was specified in the new Constitution that spending bills could only be originated in the House. The ``hope`` here was that Members of the House would hesitate to vote for higher taxes because such an act would get them voted out of office. Both Houses of Congress had to agree to any tax. The President had the power of Veto. It was the ability of Congress, in joint action, to overturn a veto, which ensured that the President in the final instance had to comply with the LEGISLATIVE power. This made the Executive power somewhat secondary.
The US presidency itself was a rather uninteresting political office. It could enact no laws of its own nor could it raise any taxes on its own. The laws enacted by Congress are given to the President to, as the Constitution says, ``faithfully execute``. The President was voted the money by Congress with which to give effect to the laws enacted by Congress. The political and Constitutional fact was that a President had to rely on Congress for both the money as well as the laws enacted by it before acting at all.
If either Congress or the Presidency - or both acting in collusion - tried to circumvent the Constitution, the Judicial Branch in the form of the Supreme Court stood as the third and CO-EQUAL branch of government. Its power lay in its ability to find and declare that any such acts were UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The benefit of such a system was supposed to be, and for a while actually was, LIMITED government with LIMITED powers resulting in Individual Freedom and Liberty.
Apart from the deep wound of slavery in the US, which Britain had abolished years earlier by the peaceful moral suasion of Wilberforce, never in all human history had a nation been as free as the USA. It was for good reason that the US was called: The Last Best Hope For All Mankind.
The November 7 Congressional elections are, in principle, about political POWER not about party. The main issue in this election is NOT being discussed. This issue is whether political power in the United States is going to be unlimited - or limited. If it is to be the former, then the last best hope for all mankind is dead. The Republic is over, replaced by an Absolute National Government. If it is to be ``limited`` government, then the States in the Union still have a chance. Here it does not matter that it is the Republicans who hold both of the Houses of Congress and the White House. The issue would have been the same had it been the Democrats in this position. The political direction of the United States has been clear for nearly a century. It has taken this long to get to where the US is today only because of the moral and political opposition of the American people. As more and more American cease to be citizens and gradually become only consumers the force of their opposition to tyranny weakens to the point it has reached today.
If one central political truth in the US has been proven over the last thirty odd years, it is that neither of the two main political parties can be trusted to hold power in both Houses of Congress AND in the White House. Whenever this has happened, both parties have expanded political power with no mercy, leaving an incoming administration with these new powers in hand. Having gained office, the newly arrived administration or executive took no steps whatsoever to diminish such power. Instead, they proceeded to expand the political power even further on their own.
All political power should be looked at as a CLUB. A club with which to beat men into submission. After all, government is always force - coercive force.
The sole issues are the size of the club and who wields it. At present, there is nothing inside the US, no cohesive political force, strong enough to gain votes in Congress with the purpose of reducing the size of the political club and thereby curbing the power of government. That reduces the central political issue in November to whose hands are on the club. It is these hands on the club which have to be pried off again and again and again, with the end purpose that neither party gains BOTH the White House and both Houses of Congress, if for no other purpose than to keep power divided. In present circumstances, establishing the principle that ``you get ONE term only`` is the stand behind which a campaign can be rolled out to begin to CURTAIL the power of government - to shrink the size of the club.
This Congressional election will be one of America`s most grim, ugly and brutal. Any and all means and methods which could conceivably make it possible for them to hold on to both houses of Congress will be used by the White House and the Republican Party itself. The House of Representatives is the political centre of this contest. This is because the House is the only place where impeachment can be launched and there are plenty of grounds for this. The best and the most direct impeachable offense is the illegal wire tapping which the Bush Administration has had the NSA and other agencies engage in.
President Bush himself, when caught red handed, has tried to brazen it out. He has admitted nineteen times (19) in public and on the record that he chose to act against the standing law.
One Is Enough. One felony, that is. The felony which Mr Bush has admitted to carries a ten-year jail term. Committing ANY felony is full grounds for impeachment with no ifs and buts about it. Directing others (in the NSA etc) to do so only compounds the offense. That is a CONSPIRACY, which is abundant impeachment grounds. But the Department of Justice is under the Executive Branch and the Republicans hold a majority in the House, so it is no wonder that nothing has happened. Something can happen in the House of Representatives, but only if the House changes hands on November 7.
If that is what lies ahead, the Bush Administration is facing a stupendous problem. If the House is lost, the chairmanships of House Committees also change hands. They have full subpoena powers. They can call any witnesses they want, swear them in, and ask them anything they want. The only thing that protects such witnesses is the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. But in President Bush`s own case there is no such protection. His nineteen public statements that he broke the law convict him. Mr Bush has not stopped there. Among many other things, he has directed the US Armed Forces to take actions in breach of the Geneva Conventions. The Senate, however, has ratified these, making them part of the laws of the US. No matter, Mr Bush`s public statements convict him. That is why holding the House is a desperate matter.
The Republican campaign plan, as led by Mr Karl Rove, is already clear. It is a plan to fight solely in each electoral district. Mr Rove plans his ``normal`` method of full force character assassination and the destruction of the reputation of the opponent in the district. The campaign is to be confined to the ``local level`` because no Republican wants to be seen as being close to President Bush or to answer questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the Democrat side, the campaign plans are less clear. They seem to revolve around claims that President Bush is a failed war leader and that he is losing his global war against terror. The Democrats seem to have chosen to run on general themes, not local ones.
Pity the American public. The American people are going to be subjected to an unrelenting barrage of claims from both sides. But one huge political point ought by now to be at least partially clear to most Americans. The full surveillance state exists and is active inside these United States. If their knowledge were to go far enough in historical terms, most Americans would know that the police state always follows after the surveillance state has arrived. The central issue before all Americans is POWER - political power versus the Individual Freedoms and Liberties they once had. The people presently in power will do anything and say anything to stay in power. An ``October surprise`` therefore, should not be ruled out as a possibility, its purpose being to stampede many Americans into the political arms of those now in power - to keep power in their hands.
On July 4, 1776, America became the exemplar nation of the west. Now Americans can lose that.
#141 Posted by aquaris on September 22, 2006 9:02:19 am
Well every one seems to be trying to corner every one else...
that Peacock Karzai says... Pakistan Send Talibans... Mushy Says.
Mullah Umar is in Kandhar, and thats were their base is.
plus its the Karazai in tacit collusion with India , is fanning the Balochistan Issue.
Balouch Jirga called by the Khan of Kalat , Just has decided to go to ICJ , for the breach of treaty of 1948 between Pakistan and Khan of Kalat
So the chess board is pretty lively , at least for Pakistan being in the center....
#139 Posted by Urstruly on September 22, 2006 8:45:30 am
What has these Na Pak Faujis & collaborators of Neo-colonialism turned our nation into:
#140 Posted by mohar11 on September 22, 2006 8:50:58 am
Re: # 139
Well - the pakis ain`t giving up Bin Laden... so Bush is going to go in himself... that`s what he said the day before - US forces may invade into pakiland if the need be...
Well - the pakis ain`t giving up Bin Laden... so Bush is going to go in himself... that`s what he said the day before - US forces may invade into pakiland if the need be...
#138 Posted by aquaris on September 22, 2006 8:43:49 am
There is another one....
as reported in the international press..
Bush has said , He will Go inside Pakistan if the needs arise to BOMB out his once Bossom Budy OBL .
and Mushy..........!!!!
Is he HelpLess....??
#136 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 8:30:07 am
But Mush`s saying this at this particular time requires analysis. Why did he need to announce this at this point?
Is it because he needs to explain to the gathering forces against the Bush empire that actually he was arm-twisted and it wasn`t his fault?
Is it because Taliban are back in AF and Iran is defiant and Castro`s 121 nation summit was a success and Chavez abuses both Bush and UN not only on the general assembly floor but in Harlem as well?
Comments ... SR/Masadi/UrsTruly/Bulleya/HP (is he on vacation?). No macacas please.
Is it because he needs to explain to the gathering forces against the Bush empire that actually he was arm-twisted and it wasn`t his fault?
Is it because Taliban are back in AF and Iran is defiant and Castro`s 121 nation summit was a success and Chavez abuses both Bush and UN not only on the general assembly floor but in Harlem as well?
Comments ... SR/Masadi/UrsTruly/Bulleya/HP (is he on vacation?). No macacas please.
#157 Posted by SR on September 23, 2006 6:55:24 pm
Re: # 136 {``...Mush`s saying this at this particular time requires analysis. Why did he need to announce this at this point? ...``}
Again, you ask a timing question. You are implying political timing in your question. But have you considered the matter of market timing? Yes, follow the money. Who knows the general may have generated this limelight to sell his book. After all, Bush endored its sale, ``BUY the book`` he said into the TV camera.
Some people have neither principles nor shame. Read Ayaz Amir to see what I mean.
...SR
Again, you ask a timing question. You are implying political timing in your question. But have you considered the matter of market timing? Yes, follow the money. Who knows the general may have generated this limelight to sell his book. After all, Bush endored its sale, ``BUY the book`` he said into the TV camera.
Some people have neither principles nor shame. Read Ayaz Amir to see what I mean.
...SR
#134 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 8:17:03 am
But the question is: Could the US have carried out this threat?
In my opinion probably not. Only attacks could have been with cruise missiles or ICBMs with conventional warheads, not active air campaigns because of Pak`s solid air-defences. How much damage would that have done? And at what cost to USA?
In my opinion probably not. Only attacks could have been with cruise missiles or ICBMs with conventional warheads, not active air campaigns because of Pak`s solid air-defences. How much damage would that have done? And at what cost to USA?
#137 Posted by Urstruly on September 22, 2006 8:34:31 am
A POEM DEDICATED TO CHAINED AND SHACKLED PAKISTAN
By Habi Jalib
Bootan Di Sarkar
(Panjabi)
Dakuan da je saath na dinda pind da pehredar
Aj paireen zanjeer na hundi jit na hundi har
Paggan apne gal wich pa lo turo pet de bhar
Chadh jaye te mushkil lehndi bootan di sarkar
Translation:
The Government of Jack Boots
If the dacoit had not had
The village guard as his ally
Our feet would not be in chains
Our victory would not defeat imply
Mourn with turbans round your necks
Crawling on your bellies, comply
Once the jack boot government is up
It’s hard, to make it bid good-bye
#133 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 8:10:33 am
#132 by masadi
Masadi, armitage has denied he said that. He says all he said was ``Either you`re with us or against us``. Maybe be it was still a further underling who laid out the details.
My real beef with mush over this is that at-least he should have told armitage to ask his boss to call him. He didn`t even do that ... just complied.
Masadi, armitage has denied he said that. He says all he said was ``Either you`re with us or against us``. Maybe be it was still a further underling who laid out the details.
My real beef with mush over this is that at-least he should have told armitage to ask his boss to call him. He didn`t even do that ... just complied.
#132 Posted by masadi on September 22, 2006 7:59:51 am
In #113 I had noted based on what 110 had written, {{{ #110 writes << ...even the MUSHY..... has spilled the beans ......( an open secret ) on how...
Armatige or whatever.... threatened to Flat out Pakistan .... >>>>
Nothing new in this assertion, listen to the speech he gave to ``the nation`` shortly after 9/11 when America had given him a list of demands, he mentioned the national existence being threatened, you just have to listen more carefully }}}
In addition to this I would like to bring to your attention that only the most barbaric and perverse people on earth, possibly in its entire history can threaten the lives and well being of a nation of 162 million in such an off hand manner and that also not as the ultimate end but as a by-the-way endeavour in order to get to destroy another 30 million in Afghanistan and send them ``back to the stone age``.
Like I have said before multiple times these US elite are barbarians, they do not recognize the vast majority of people on earth as ``humans``- it is very easy for them to make pronouncements like `` get ready to be bombed ``. To them you are not human, burn this in your mind regardless of the rhetoric of peons like tahmed, they will not refrain from killing you or your kids and grandkids if they interfere with their own objectives. Then they call themselves ``civilization``. They are worse than the mongols, the most perverse barbarians the world has seen, they have a whole history of carnage behind them and proposed barbarism in front of them, and then they have the audacity to say terrorism and talk hypocritically about Darfur.
This episode should also tell future generations in Pakistan the true nature of their ``sovereignty`` which is non existant. If by some happy turn of events someone with my pov happened to be in the command in Pakistan the reply would have been quite different. Armitage would return home several pounds lighter and much politer, no torture however would be practiced maybe waterboarding, information on proposed bombings of 162 million needs to be extracted, does it not? Damn hypocrites.
Armatige or whatever.... threatened to Flat out Pakistan .... >>>>
Nothing new in this assertion, listen to the speech he gave to ``the nation`` shortly after 9/11 when America had given him a list of demands, he mentioned the national existence being threatened, you just have to listen more carefully }}}
In addition to this I would like to bring to your attention that only the most barbaric and perverse people on earth, possibly in its entire history can threaten the lives and well being of a nation of 162 million in such an off hand manner and that also not as the ultimate end but as a by-the-way endeavour in order to get to destroy another 30 million in Afghanistan and send them ``back to the stone age``.
Like I have said before multiple times these US elite are barbarians, they do not recognize the vast majority of people on earth as ``humans``- it is very easy for them to make pronouncements like `` get ready to be bombed ``. To them you are not human, burn this in your mind regardless of the rhetoric of peons like tahmed, they will not refrain from killing you or your kids and grandkids if they interfere with their own objectives. Then they call themselves ``civilization``. They are worse than the mongols, the most perverse barbarians the world has seen, they have a whole history of carnage behind them and proposed barbarism in front of them, and then they have the audacity to say terrorism and talk hypocritically about Darfur.
This episode should also tell future generations in Pakistan the true nature of their ``sovereignty`` which is non existant. If by some happy turn of events someone with my pov happened to be in the command in Pakistan the reply would have been quite different. Armitage would return home several pounds lighter and much politer, no torture however would be practiced maybe waterboarding, information on proposed bombings of 162 million needs to be extracted, does it not? Damn hypocrites.
#135 Posted by aquaris on September 22, 2006 8:20:25 am
Re: # 132
Yes Chevez the Venuzvalian has earlier .... said...
This Bush thing is Fit for a Trial in the international court of Justice ...for WAR CRIMES...... and CRIMES Against Humanity.....!!
Yes Chevez the Venuzvalian has earlier .... said...
This Bush thing is Fit for a Trial in the international court of Justice ...for WAR CRIMES...... and CRIMES Against Humanity.....!!
#131 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 7:45:43 am
#129 by Urstruly
Yes. A couple of years ago the pre-eminent orthopaedic surgeon of Lahore who was running a charity hospital as well as physio of the Pak cricket team, was picked up just because he had visited Afghanistan after Oct 2001 to fix broken bones and help amputees. He was kept incognito by FBI types and only let go because there were protests in the street and lots of bad press. Most we do not even hear about.
Yes. A couple of years ago the pre-eminent orthopaedic surgeon of Lahore who was running a charity hospital as well as physio of the Pak cricket team, was picked up just because he had visited Afghanistan after Oct 2001 to fix broken bones and help amputees. He was kept incognito by FBI types and only let go because there were protests in the street and lots of bad press. Most we do not even hear about.
#130 Posted by tahmed32 on September 22, 2006 7:27:08 am
#126 I am sorry but you are being irrational here - 100% maulvis do not need to be evil in order for you to condemn those evil actions done under the cover of Islam that I listed. As for my being similarly selective as you - that is not true. If I see a maulvi doing something right, I have noted that on chowk as well - e.g., I noted on chowk that the case of mukhtaran mai was brought to light because the village maulvi spoke out about it during friday prayers. And on several occasions I have noted Sattar Edhi (not a maulvi, but obviously a pious muslim) as being one of the true Pakistani VIPs.
And all this despite my opposition to any professional priesthood or politicians seeking to advance their careers by posing as religious leaders as being a violation of the Quran.
So, if you were waiting for me to be be fair - I already am. Simply blowing the horn of some ideology or some group fools no one.
And all this despite my opposition to any professional priesthood or politicians seeking to advance their careers by posing as religious leaders as being a violation of the Quran.
So, if you were waiting for me to be be fair - I already am. Simply blowing the horn of some ideology or some group fools no one.
#129 Posted by Urstruly on September 22, 2006 7:25:33 am
Zeemax
For some starnge reason this human rights org is only mentioning the kidnapping of 2000 people and most of them technocrats, scientis, businessmen and engineers etc. Whereas according to a report by HRC in Paksitan a couple of years ago, there are somewhere between 6000 to 16000 Paksiatni citizens missing. A good number of them are religious scholars and Imams. As a matter of a Mehmood Shaam, the Editor of Jang Newspaper wrote an editorial sometime ago tiltled ``Where is my neighborhood mosque`s Imam??``. He also mentioned a figure somewhere in between 6000. A couple of weeks ago Chowk censored one my post, a column by Munnu Bhai, who also reported an alarming rate of kidnapping of citizens of Pakistan by Na Pak fauj.
For some starnge reason this human rights org is only mentioning the kidnapping of 2000 people and most of them technocrats, scientis, businessmen and engineers etc. Whereas according to a report by HRC in Paksitan a couple of years ago, there are somewhere between 6000 to 16000 Paksiatni citizens missing. A good number of them are religious scholars and Imams. As a matter of a Mehmood Shaam, the Editor of Jang Newspaper wrote an editorial sometime ago tiltled ``Where is my neighborhood mosque`s Imam??``. He also mentioned a figure somewhere in between 6000. A couple of weeks ago Chowk censored one my post, a column by Munnu Bhai, who also reported an alarming rate of kidnapping of citizens of Pakistan by Na Pak fauj.
#128 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 6:56:32 am
#126 by Urstruly
Why do you always fall prey to these domesticated_macacas? Don`t you know they always pull out false dilemmas to divert from a valid subject to another subject of their choice? This has been successfully done in this instance.
Yes. Pak regime has kidnapped and handed-over hundreds to the Americans without following any procedures whatsoever.. Remember Aimal Kansi? In that case at-least there was a US indictment; in these cases there`re not even any evidences handed over. They just pick them up and send them over.
Why do you always fall prey to these domesticated_macacas? Don`t you know they always pull out false dilemmas to divert from a valid subject to another subject of their choice? This has been successfully done in this instance.
Yes. Pak regime has kidnapped and handed-over hundreds to the Americans without following any procedures whatsoever.. Remember Aimal Kansi? In that case at-least there was a US indictment; in these cases there`re not even any evidences handed over. They just pick them up and send them over.
#127 Posted by zeemax on September 22, 2006 6:50:00 am
#122 by haider5
Pls. Check the other board. I replied there. Thks.
Pls. Check the other board. I replied there. Thks.
#125 Posted by tahmed32 on September 22, 2006 6:18:05 am
#123 Usrtruly: That is bad indeed.
However, you would credible if you were not so selective in your condemnations. Or gave praise where praise was due.
How come for example you never speak out against the napaak maulvis in Pakistan who have targetted and killed scores of shia doctors in Karachi? or attacked masjids and killed those saying namaz? or called for hadood laws which allow ghoondas to prey upon the weakest members of Pakistani society - women from poor families?
However, you would credible if you were not so selective in your condemnations. Or gave praise where praise was due.
How come for example you never speak out against the napaak maulvis in Pakistan who have targetted and killed scores of shia doctors in Karachi? or attacked masjids and killed those saying namaz? or called for hadood laws which allow ghoondas to prey upon the weakest members of Pakistani society - women from poor families?
#126 Posted by Urstruly on September 22, 2006 6:29:01 am
Re: # 125
The very day you will prove that 100% of moulvis are rotten eggs, I will condemn NaPak moulvis. And if you say that not 100% of moulvis are bad and some are good then you need to qualify the term with phrases like ``those moulvis who incite violence aganist shais``, or ``those moulvis who misguide people from the righteous path of Allah and Mohammad(pbuh)``. But since this does not fit into your agenda, you will never qualify your ``condemning``; and since you wont do that, I will also remain selcetive in condemning those mullahs who are collaborators to those who oppress us.
The very day you will prove that 100% of moulvis are rotten eggs, I will condemn NaPak moulvis. And if you say that not 100% of moulvis are bad and some are good then you need to qualify the term with phrases like ``those moulvis who incite violence aganist shais``, or ``those moulvis who misguide people from the righteous path of Allah and Mohammad(pbuh)``. But since this does not fit into your agenda, you will never qualify your ``condemning``; and since you wont do that, I will also remain selcetive in condemning those mullahs who are collaborators to those who oppress us.
#124 Posted by tahmed32 on September 22, 2006 6:16:46 am
#123 That is bad indeed.
However, you would credible if you also spoke out against the napaak maulvis in Pakistan who have targetted and killed scores of shia doctors in Karachi? or attacked masjids and killed those saying namaz? or called for hadood laws which allow ghoondas to prey upon the weakest members of Pakistani society - women from poor families?
However, you would credible if you also spoke out against the napaak maulvis in Pakistan who have targetted and killed scores of shia doctors in Karachi? or attacked masjids and killed those saying namaz? or called for hadood laws which allow ghoondas to prey upon the weakest members of Pakistani society - women from poor families?
#123 Posted by Urstruly on September 22, 2006 6:07:09 am
DISAPPEARNACES IN PAKISTAN
Why these news dont make it to English language media in Pakistan (allegedly a free media):
According to the news report below, reporting a protest by an indegenous Pakistani human rights organization and the relatives of kidnapped people, since 2004, Na Pak intelligence agencies have kidnapped over 2000 Pakistanis - including Engineers, doctors, businessmen, and technicians. THese Pakistanis citizens are rotting in American dungeons and torture cells with no information to their families for the past several years.
Why these news dont make it to English language media in Pakistan (allegedly a free media):
According to the news report below, reporting a protest by an indegenous Pakistani human rights organization and the relatives of kidnapped people, since 2004, Na Pak intelligence agencies have kidnapped over 2000 Pakistanis - including Engineers, doctors, businessmen, and technicians. THese Pakistanis citizens are rotting in American dungeons and torture cells with no information to their families for the past several years.
#122 Posted by haider5 on September 22, 2006 5:31:39 am
if zeemax is here plz read this
zeemax
{I`m not sure whether 9/11 was carried out by Muslims; but even if it had been, their answer would be :If you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children.}
i am really grateful that you have proved me right at very outset of your post.
i wrote once:
``wherever it is carried out to satisfy ones own ego it is not jihad, its personal war so its a very sacred word for us and the thinline between jihad and personal war needs to be understood. and the jihadis you talk about are fighting their personal wars to satisfy their egos so they cannot be called jihadi in any sense``
and you wrote:
``if you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children``
SO:
where is jihad?
where is islam?
where is God?
here i am quite comfortable to say under the light of your notion that this is revenge, personal war, ego. BUT NOT JIHAD.
hope you will come up with some reference of Hadith or quran to prove claiming Jihad in this situation as obligatory.(if you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children)
beleive me or not i wish you could come up with some solid reasoning based on islamic sharia to prove your notion right and your objective should be to make the Liberaloons/Moderatoon like me to accept your school of thought. and plz prevent beating the bush.
you once said that haider is badly confused to urstruly. i started thinking at that time that i might be wrong. but i tried to adopt the way to question you to know your point of view where you feel i am worng. but when i asked about the jihad you said it is all written in the sura baqara and didnot tell me a single extra word and started tagging me with different names, which i was not expecting. beleive me i wanted to be corrected. but now i feel that your objectives are different perhaps you are trying to defend your ownselves not islam. you come up with the auguments to prove yourself right against bjkumar and the party. but you never tried to prove the teachings of islam logical and right. and there is hell of difference.
here let me tell you your mail contains lots of confusions. which can be pointed out easily.
for example you tried to prove your notion by giving the example of hiroshima`s nuclear bombing giving it the shape of hypothesis. which is totally wrong because they would have never said it Jihad simply because they are not muslim. wish you had quoted some example from Islamic world.
There are many more. Will elaborate in next mails. come to point.
thanks
haider
zeemax
{I`m not sure whether 9/11 was carried out by Muslims; but even if it had been, their answer would be :If you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children.}
i am really grateful that you have proved me right at very outset of your post.
i wrote once:
``wherever it is carried out to satisfy ones own ego it is not jihad, its personal war so its a very sacred word for us and the thinline between jihad and personal war needs to be understood. and the jihadis you talk about are fighting their personal wars to satisfy their egos so they cannot be called jihadi in any sense``
and you wrote:
``if you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children``
SO:
where is jihad?
where is islam?
where is God?
here i am quite comfortable to say under the light of your notion that this is revenge, personal war, ego. BUT NOT JIHAD.
hope you will come up with some reference of Hadith or quran to prove claiming Jihad in this situation as obligatory.(if you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children)
beleive me or not i wish you could come up with some solid reasoning based on islamic sharia to prove your notion right and your objective should be to make the Liberaloons/Moderatoon like me to accept your school of thought. and plz prevent beating the bush.
you once said that haider is badly confused to urstruly. i started thinking at that time that i might be wrong. but i tried to adopt the way to question you to know your point of view where you feel i am worng. but when i asked about the jihad you said it is all written in the sura baqara and didnot tell me a single extra word and started tagging me with different names, which i was not expecting. beleive me i wanted to be corrected. but now i feel that your objectives are different perhaps you are trying to defend your ownselves not islam. you come up with the auguments to prove yourself right against bjkumar and the party. but you never tried to prove the teachings of islam logical and right. and there is hell of difference.
here let me tell you your mail contains lots of confusions. which can be pointed out easily.
for example you tried to prove your notion by giving the example of hiroshima`s nuclear bombing giving it the shape of hypothesis. which is totally wrong because they would have never said it Jihad simply because they are not muslim. wish you had quoted some example from Islamic world.
There are many more. Will elaborate in next mails. come to point.
thanks
haider
#121 Posted by Humsab on September 22, 2006 5:22:39 am
#119 SR ji
This is dignity and self respect. Kudos to you.
Regards
This is dignity and self respect. Kudos to you.
Regards
#120 Posted by tahmed32 on September 22, 2006 3:58:19 am
US muslims show other muslims the right path....
Today`s Washington Post: Muslims Raise Funds For Catholic Churches
Excerpt:
Though Palestinian Muslims have reacted violently to recent remarks by Pope Benedict XVI, Muslims in the United States are raising money to help rebuild churches damaged in the protests and met with a Vatican envoy to call for more interfaith dialogue.
In Tampa, a branch of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations gave $5,000 to help repair the churches in the West Bank and Gaza. Council officials said it was the first gift in a national fundraising campaign. CAIR has criticized the pope`s Sept. 12 speech at Regensburg University in Germany, but it has also condemned the violent protests.
In Washington, representatives of CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the Falls Church-based Dar al-Hiijra Islamic Center met for two hours with Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the papal nuncio, as the Vatican ambassador is called. The InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington arranged the meeting.
``We want to build on the legacy of John Paul II and use this opportunity to encourage dialogue and not divisiveness,`` said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR`s legal director.
Today`s Washington Post: Muslims Raise Funds For Catholic Churches
Excerpt:
Though Palestinian Muslims have reacted violently to recent remarks by Pope Benedict XVI, Muslims in the United States are raising money to help rebuild churches damaged in the protests and met with a Vatican envoy to call for more interfaith dialogue.
In Tampa, a branch of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations gave $5,000 to help repair the churches in the West Bank and Gaza. Council officials said it was the first gift in a national fundraising campaign. CAIR has criticized the pope`s Sept. 12 speech at Regensburg University in Germany, but it has also condemned the violent protests.
In Washington, representatives of CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the Falls Church-based Dar al-Hiijra Islamic Center met for two hours with Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the papal nuncio, as the Vatican ambassador is called. The InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington arranged the meeting.
``We want to build on the legacy of John Paul II and use this opportunity to encourage dialogue and not divisiveness,`` said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR`s legal director.
#117 Posted by strongman_dick on September 22, 2006 1:56:02 am
#116 sign of the times......even the Nazis started in a small way like the Taliban and the Alqaeda.
the difference is the Nazis had brains the Al-qaeda and taliban had very little
the difference is the Nazis had brains the Al-qaeda and taliban had very little
#116 Posted by HP on September 21, 2006 11:50:48 pm
FDR went to war against these guys…
FDR faced off simultaneously with the #1 and #2 militaries in the world, both of whom had more soldiers under arms, more ships, more tanks, and more planes than the US. Germany, Japan, and Italy supported their military with enormous industrial resources and boasted research programs that gave them the best weapons in the world. German tanks were better and faster than any the US could field. Japanese Zeros could outperform any other plane. Both the Germans and Japanese had already defeated other forces in the field and had experience in fighting a modern, mechanized war.
Bush fighting these guys by reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions
W`s enemy was a small, irregular force of less than 10,000 men, most of them poorly armed. They had not a single plane in their air force, not one ship in their navy, and barely a handful of artillery. The most modern equipment they could boast were cast-offs from our own forces that were two decades or more out of date. Their training was erratic. They were outcasts, even among their own people, with little support and no ability to make or repair their equipment.
And here is what NYT has to say…http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/opinion/22fri1.html
“The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. While the White House agreed to a list of ``grave breaches``? of the conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes, it stipulated that the president could decide on his own what actions might be a lesser breach of the Geneva Conventions and what interrogation techniques he considered permissible. It`s not clear how much the public will ultimately learn about those decisions. They will be contained in an executive order that is supposed to be made public, but Mr. Hadley reiterated that specific interrogation techniques will remain secret. [Emphasis added.]
“
“The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting. It`s time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election. The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess without endangering U.S. troops, eviscerating American standards of justice, or further harming the nation`s severely damaged reputation.
#115 Posted by HP on September 21, 2006 11:11:24 pm
#111 by GT
``There is no such thing as circumstantial evidence in politics.``
“Are you `kiddin` me? Politics is all about convincing others through circumstantial evidence.”
Some time you need to bait people to get them to response. Obviously, SR just doesn’t have it in him to even try to bring in some facts to support his conspiracy theories. Circumstantial evidence mostly ends up being a conspiracy theory. Politics is all about understanding issues and placing them in the proper background and context. Politics is not abt convincing other through Circ evid. Some people analyze politics using Circ Evidence and mostly they end up in the black hole of conspiracy theories. That is where SR resides….
``otherwise I hear masadi``
Asadi is not bad just learn to parse his posts correctly.
``There is no such thing as circumstantial evidence in politics.``
“Are you `kiddin` me? Politics is all about convincing others through circumstantial evidence.”
Some time you need to bait people to get them to response. Obviously, SR just doesn’t have it in him to even try to bring in some facts to support his conspiracy theories. Circumstantial evidence mostly ends up being a conspiracy theory. Politics is all about understanding issues and placing them in the proper background and context. Politics is not abt convincing other through Circ evid. Some people analyze politics using Circ Evidence and mostly they end up in the black hole of conspiracy theories. That is where SR resides….
``otherwise I hear masadi``
Asadi is not bad just learn to parse his posts correctly.
#119 Posted by SR on September 22, 2006 2:01:20 am
Re: # 115 HP {``...you need to bait people to get ... response. ... SR just doesn’t have it in him to ... bring in some facts ... a conspiracy theory...`` etc, etc,}
I`m sure you mean well, and it`s okay that you like to score points like so many others here. I simply don`t get excited about, nor draw any pleasure from this silly one-up-manship game. More power to those who do. To me it is enough to exchange views and leave it at that once we have stated our case. But if the objective becomes to prove one`s debating skills, then I simply don`t have the time nor the interest to get into such a juvenile contest. Furthermore, this point was peripheral to the central theme. On that score I see that you (# 116) share the same bias as me, therefore we are essentially in the ``same camp`` and I don`t want to get into a pissing match. We`ll just agree that yours is bigger than mine if that is any consolation to your ego. Let`s not take ourselves any more seriously here. Some of us do have a life outside cyberspace.
affectionately,
...SR
I`m sure you mean well, and it`s okay that you like to score points like so many others here. I simply don`t get excited about, nor draw any pleasure from this silly one-up-manship game. More power to those who do. To me it is enough to exchange views and leave it at that once we have stated our case. But if the objective becomes to prove one`s debating skills, then I simply don`t have the time nor the interest to get into such a juvenile contest. Furthermore, this point was peripheral to the central theme. On that score I see that you (# 116) share the same bias as me, therefore we are essentially in the ``same camp`` and I don`t want to get into a pissing match. We`ll just agree that yours is bigger than mine if that is any consolation to your ego. Let`s not take ourselves any more seriously here. Some of us do have a life outside cyberspace.
affectionately,
...SR
#114 Posted by masadi on September 21, 2006 9:05:36 pm
In addition to #112, this pope is following in the traditon of John Paul, at that time he was a strong supporter of the US in its anti-communist fight, now the enemy is different and so is the rhetoric. John Paul`s anti-communist alliance with Muslims though quite bland was only one of convenience, don`t make the mistake of thinking that he thought highly of Islam, he hated it just as much.
#113 Posted by masadi on September 21, 2006 8:57:50 pm
#110 writes << ...even the MUSHY..... has spilled the beans ......( an open secret ) on how...
Armatige or whatever.... threatened to Flat out Pakistan .... >>>>
Nothing new in this assertion, listen to the speech he gave to ``the nation`` shortly after 9/11 when America had given him a list of demands, he mentioned the national existence being threatened, you just have to listen more carefully
Armatige or whatever.... threatened to Flat out Pakistan .... >>>>
Nothing new in this assertion, listen to the speech he gave to ``the nation`` shortly after 9/11 when America had given him a list of demands, he mentioned the national existence being threatened, you just have to listen more carefully
#118 Posted by strongman_dick on September 22, 2006 1:57:38 am
Re: # 113 Hindsight is great! Now you can be the great Nostradamus of chowk.
BTW watch out, your hindsight better be good! You know of the proclivities of zeemax, I presume!
BTW watch out, your hindsight better be good! You know of the proclivities of zeemax, I presume!
#112 Posted by masadi on September 21, 2006 8:53:16 pm
Zeemax in #87 <<< So does it follow that the Pope was using the interpretation of an isolated scholar who rejected `reason` to convey that God in `Islam` is unreasonable? If he was, then certainly the Pope is either incompetent or a Bush/Blair co-conspirator. >>>
He is just a run of the mill Catholic and using his stereotype of Islam~ and they all share in this except for the genuine scholars~ in whose ranks he does not belong, and as such he defaults to Ad Hominem attacks against the prophet, as if that is proof of anything. They believe in the most illogical of concepts, of one being three and three being one, i.e. the trinity of an eternal being born (as son) and an immortal dying so that an innocent washes away the sins of the guilty~ talk about a super perverted concept of justice, yet they have the audacity to poke fingers at Islam saying it is contrary to reason when every other statement of the Quran refers to some argument or the other to establish its assertions. Little different than the higher barbarians pointing to the killing of a Nun in Somalia and generalizing that to the entire community of Muslims when they butcher as state and economic policy hundreds of thousands every week
He is just a run of the mill Catholic and using his stereotype of Islam~ and they all share in this except for the genuine scholars~ in whose ranks he does not belong, and as such he defaults to Ad Hominem attacks against the prophet, as if that is proof of anything. They believe in the most illogical of concepts, of one being three and three being one, i.e. the trinity of an eternal being born (as son) and an immortal dying so that an innocent washes away the sins of the guilty~ talk about a super perverted concept of justice, yet they have the audacity to poke fingers at Islam saying it is contrary to reason when every other statement of the Quran refers to some argument or the other to establish its assertions. Little different than the higher barbarians pointing to the killing of a Nun in Somalia and generalizing that to the entire community of Muslims when they butcher as state and economic policy hundreds of thousands every week
#110 Posted by aquaris on September 21, 2006 5:29:46 pm
seems like drops have started to FALL....soon it will be heavy....
...even the MUSHY..... has spilled the beans ......( an open secret ) on how...
Armatige or whatever.... threatened to Flat out Pakistan .... and send it to STONE AGE...
after 9/11 if pakistan did not co-operated.
....by the Way ... I Like the idea of Chevez... in which he proposed to send a CASE to the international court of Justice against BUSH...... for WAR Crimes.....
#108 Posted by echoboom on September 21, 2006 1:38:38 pm
THe world hates the United Satan. Only the mutts & mongerels from the Cantonement & colony kennels drool for him.
The are the followers of the Ghulam-i-Farangi who told his pack of Canines never ever to badmouth the angrez top dog. He exhorted them to serve them will all the loyalty a dog could muster.
And it is being proven here time & time aagin...Q32 dares not do it; whereas even million upon millions of Americans Zaleel the United Satan everyday.
THere GOT to be a reason!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm Hmmmmmmm.
A clear outing of a Q....``Think massa-thoughts , work like an ass, live like a dog.
This needs an encore..in case the dog-devils missed it.
Reflecting the thinking and spirit of Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez delivered an impassioned speech yesterday to the assembled delegates who came to hear him. It`s one likely to be favorably remembered many years from now.At its end, the delegates showed their appreciation and support by giving him a standing ovation (the longest one of all the leaders addressing the Assembly) in contrast to the cool and polite reception given George Bush the previous day who chose not to attend to hear the Venezuelan leader.
The are the followers of the Ghulam-i-Farangi who told his pack of Canines never ever to badmouth the angrez top dog. He exhorted them to serve them will all the loyalty a dog could muster.
And it is being proven here time & time aagin...Q32 dares not do it; whereas even million upon millions of Americans Zaleel the United Satan everyday.
THere GOT to be a reason!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm Hmmmmmmm.
A clear outing of a Q....``Think massa-thoughts , work like an ass, live like a dog.
This needs an encore..in case the dog-devils missed it.
Reflecting the thinking and spirit of Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez delivered an impassioned speech yesterday to the assembled delegates who came to hear him. It`s one likely to be favorably remembered many years from now.At its end, the delegates showed their appreciation and support by giving him a standing ovation (the longest one of all the leaders addressing the Assembly) in contrast to the cool and polite reception given George Bush the previous day who chose not to attend to hear the Venezuelan leader.
#107 Posted by bbabu on September 21, 2006 12:18:07 pm
Bush won in 2000 by the narrowest margins. In 2004 he was relected winning 52% of vote.
Even if Democrats sweep the elections in Novemeber Republicans will still have 200-210 seats in the House and 47-49 Senators.
#105 Posted by Dash_Dot on September 21, 2006 10:49:49 am
#103 zeemax - I would agree with you .
However, i wonder if these very people provide their peoples with the rights they used in the UN?
I dont think so. I just returned from caracas - and life is very dangerous for any one out of the oridinary there.
In the middle east
the situation is the same- and worse if you are a brown minority.
As i said, this is all rethoric and no action.
So please stop having an orgasm
However, i wonder if these very people provide their peoples with the rights they used in the UN?
I dont think so. I just returned from caracas - and life is very dangerous for any one out of the oridinary there.
In the middle east
the situation is the same- and worse if you are a brown minority.
As i said, this is all rethoric and no action.
So please stop having an orgasm
#106 Posted by mohar11 on September 21, 2006 11:14:36 am
Re: # 105
Islamic l0sers like zeemax are desperate... they will hang on to any sugar-dady with a big mouth and a fata## like that Chavez joker... Yeah, he will deliver them from the Great Satan... :))
Islamic l0sers like zeemax are desperate... they will hang on to any sugar-dady with a big mouth and a fata## like that Chavez joker... Yeah, he will deliver them from the Great Satan... :))
#103 Posted by zeemax on September 21, 2006 10:10:52 am
These events in recent days are very signigficant:
1) Hugo Chavez and Ahmedinejad`s clear alliance and country rounds.
2) The non-aligned summit in Havana with 121 countries in attendance.
3) The open defiance of US, condemnation of security council, and open abuse by Chavez of Bush on General Assembly floor accompanied with clapping at each insult.
These are not minor events to be dismissed off-hand. Even Bolton looks worried.
I think a ball has begun to roll. The focus has now shifted from an East-West issue to one of North-South ... just as it must be.
God Speed!
1) Hugo Chavez and Ahmedinejad`s clear alliance and country rounds.
2) The non-aligned summit in Havana with 121 countries in attendance.
3) The open defiance of US, condemnation of security council, and open abuse by Chavez of Bush on General Assembly floor accompanied with clapping at each insult.
These are not minor events to be dismissed off-hand. Even Bolton looks worried.
I think a ball has begun to roll. The focus has now shifted from an East-West issue to one of North-South ... just as it must be.
God Speed!
#104 Posted by mohar11 on September 21, 2006 10:29:15 am
Re: # 103 zee
Oh please.... don`t be so desperate.... these two fools - one persian macaca, other a latin fata$$ - are going to take on the mighty USA... yeah right... these guys just love to sound off...
Oh please.... don`t be so desperate.... these two fools - one persian macaca, other a latin fata$$ - are going to take on the mighty USA... yeah right... these guys just love to sound off...
#100 Posted by Dash_Dot on September 21, 2006 9:46:46 am
#99 but echoboom - chavez is all talk no action.
barring a few things here and there - he has not done one thing which really and seriously troubles Corporate America.
You are the one who needs some serious education.
barring a few things here and there - he has not done one thing which really and seriously troubles Corporate America.
You are the one who needs some serious education.
#99 Posted by echoboom on September 21, 2006 9:30:13 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#97 Posted by bjkumar on September 21, 2006 7:17:57 am
#91- #95
Now, now, no need for strong language, please!
You see Dick, Zee was confusing you with a certain banned interactor.
When one is too focused on another, one sees the other everywhere – even where they don’t exist! Not the first time it has happened around here, of course. Hence, Zee’s apparent hostile welcome to you! But I think he is reassured now.
Everybody other than Dick, do not read the following line.
Psst...he is a softie inside!
Okay, back to everybody now.
Let’s not have any revolts in THIS paradise.
That would be revolting, no?!!!
I think the Gillster just does not like the GWB. He keeps on beating him up over trivialities. So, where do the Aussies fit in?!!
#96 Posted by iron_mask on September 21, 2006 7:10:10 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#95 Posted by zeemax on September 21, 2006 6:48:34 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#92 Posted by strongman_dick on September 21, 2006 5:23:32 am