Pamela Geller states:
Jerusalem belongs to the Jews and no one wil steal it from us. No one.
First Temple Seal Found in City of David * IRIS
Yet another find confirming the Biblical claims about ancient Jerusalem. This story contains an interesting twist. Jews apparently innovated in the importance of individual names, just as the Hebrew Bible is the only document of national significance in the ancient world that assigned importance to the names of anyone other than royalty:
An ancient seal bearing an archaic Hebrew inscription dating back to the 8th century BCE has been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem's City of David, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Thursday.
The find reveals that by 2,700 years ago, clerks and merchants had already begun to add their names to the seals instead of the symbols that were used in earlier centuries.
The state-run archeological body said the seal, which was discovered near the Gihon Spring in the City of David outside the walls of the Old City, bears the Hebrew name Rephaihu (ben) Shalem, a public official who lived in the Jerusalem neighborhood during this period.
The excavation, which is being carried out by Haifa University Professor Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron of the Israel Antiquities Authority, also uncovered pottery shards that date back to the Iron Age 2 (8th century BCE), which they used to date the seal, as well as fragments of three bullae, or pieces of clay that were used to seal letters or goods.
The discovery revealed an interesting development in the ancient world: whereas during the 9th century BCE letters and goods were dispatched on behalf of their senders without names, by the 8th century BCE the clerks and merchants had already begun to add their names to the seals, the archeologists said.
"In contrast with the large cluster of bullae that was found two years ago, in which all of its items contain graphic symbols [such as a boat or different animals - fish, lizards and birds] but are of an earlier date [end of the 9th-beginning of the 8th century BCE], the new items indicate that during the 8th century BCE the practice had changed and the clerks who used the seals began to add their names to them," Reich said.
When the looters, moochers, and savages start in with their verbal diarahhea. Remember:
1. ISRAEL BECAME A STATE IN 1312 B.C., TWO MILLENNIA BEFORE ISLAM;
2. ARAB REFUGEES FROM ISRAEL BEGAN CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" IN 1964, TWO DECADES AFTER (MODERN) ISRAELI STATEHOOD;
3. AFTER CONQUERING THE LAND IN 1272 B.C., JEWS RULED IT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AND MAINTAINED A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE THERE FOR 3,300 YEARS;
4. FOR OVER 3,300 YEARS, JERUSALEM WAS THE JEWISH CAPITAL. IT WAS NEVER THE CAPITAL OF ANY ARAB OR MUSLIM ENTITY. EVEN UNDER JORDANIAN RULE, (EAST) JERUSALEM WAS NOT MADE THE CAPITAL, AND NO ARAB LEADER CAME TO VISIT IT;
5. JERUSALEM IS MENTIONED OVER 700 TIMES IN THE BIBLE, BUT NOT ONCE IS IT MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN;
6. KING DAVID CONQUERED JERUSALEM; MOHAMMED NEVER SET FOOT IN IT;
7. JEWS PRAY FACING JERUSALEM; MUSLIMS FACE MECCA. IF THEY ARE BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES, MUSLIMS PRAY FACING MECCA, WITH THEIR BACKS TO JERUSALEM;
8. IN 1948, ARAB LEADERS URGED THEIR PEOPLE TO LEAVE, PROMISING TO CLEANSE THE LAND OF JEWISH PRESENCE. 68% OF THEM FLED WITHOUT EVER SETTING EYES ON AN ISRAELI SOLDIER;
9. VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE JEWISH POPULATION (ROUGHLY 950,000) OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES HAD TO FLEE AS THE RESULT OF VIOLENCE AND POGROMS;
10. SOME 630,000 ARABS LEFT ISRAEL IN 1948, WHILE CLOSE TO A MILLION JEWS WERE FORCED TO LEAVE THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES;
11. IN SPITE OF THE VAST TERRITORIES AT THEIR DISPOSAL, ARAB REFUGESS WERE DELIBERATELY PREVENTED FROM ASSIMILATING INTO THEIR HOST COUNTRIES. OF 100 MILLION REFUGEES FOLLOWING WORLD WAR 2, THEY ARE THE ONLY GROUP TO HAVE NEVER INTEGRATED WITH THEIR CORELIGIONISTS. MOST OF THE JEWISH REFUGEES FROM EUROPE AND ARAB LANDS WERE SETTL ED IN ISRAEL, A COUNTRY NO LARGER THAN NEW JERSEY;
12. THERE ARE 22 ARAB COUNTRIES, NOT COUNTING PALESTINE. THERE IS ONLY ONE JEWISH STATE. ARABS STARTED ALL FIVE WARS AGAINST ISRAEL, AND LOST EVERY ONE OF THEM;
13. FATAH AND HAMAS CONSTITUTIONS STILL CALL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. ISRAEL CEDED MOST OF THE WEST BANK AND ALL OF GAZA TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, AND EVEN PROVIDED IT WITH ARMS;
14. DURING THE JORDANIAN OCCUPATION, JEWISH HOLY SITES WERE VANDALIZED AND WERE OFF LIMITS TO JEWS. UNDER ISRAELI RULE, ALL MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL FAITHS;
15. OUT OF 175 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UP TO 1990, 97 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL; OUT OF 690 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS, 429 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL;
16. THE U.N. WAS SILENT WHEN THE JORDANIANS DESTROYED 58 SYNAGOGUES IN THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM. IT REMAINED SILENT WHILE JORDAN SYSTEMATICALLY DESECRATED THE ANCIENT JEWISH CEMETERY ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, AND IT REMAINED SILENT WHEN JORDAN ENFORCED APARTHEID LAWS PREVENTING JEWS FROM ACCESSING THE TEMPLE MOUNT AND WESTERN WALL.
THESE ARE TRYING TIMES. WE MUST ASK OURSELVES WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, AND WHAT WE WILL TELL OUR GRANDCHILDREN ABOUT OUR ACTIONS DURING THIS CRISIS, WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
NCIS (REAL LIFE NOT TV) RAILROADS MARINES?
video part - 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGgeI7OnaU
video part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhs6b479wmc
My friends, this is the documentary I was telling you about. It is still on the cutting room floor. This is the story of the 7 Marines and 1 Corpsman who were accused of murder of a single man where his identity was always in question along with so-called witness statements. It also includes falsified information from NCIS that they tried to use against these Marines.
What I have below is a compilation of mine to try to make a timeline of events and consequences according to private interviews with the members of the Pendleton 8 and their families.
On April 26, 2006, in Hamdania, Iraq, at about 0230 ( local ), Sgt Hutchins was on patrol with his Marines to find an insurgent named GOWAD, a person who was on a terrorist watch list and was held previously 3 times.
Sgt Hutchins and his squad received an intelligence briefing to apprehend or kill a known terrorist, GOWAD in this nightime operation.
Their intelligence briefing was given by his senior officer, Lt Phan, who had the pertinent information of this intelligence on a flash drive for his computer.
These guys were ordered on a mission by their Lt, found an insurgent, engaged him, and within a day had a 'family' member claim their parent was missing. At the scene, when the Marines were processing the body for travel to the body dump, NO ONE in the adjacent house at the scene identified the body or had any clue who it was.
After someone claiming to be family came forward, the claims of the man being dragged from the house kicking and screaming came out from the same people who claimed on the scene they didn't know who it was.
As they approached the known location of GOWAD, the only person they observed initially was an elderly woman outside of house of AWAD, the cousin of an Iraqi named GOWAD.
When the patrol arrived at AWAD'S house, they observed AWAD standing aside the street near a hole. AWAD then turned and fired upon the Marines.
AWAD turned and ran inside the nearest house, owned by GOWAD. The Marines followed and did a combat entry into the house to catch the person who just shot at them.
AWAD turned and fired and the Marines returned fire and killed AWAD. All members of the squad fired upon this man. Sgt Hutchins performed the 'dead check', firing his weapon 3 times into the insurgent to ensure he was dead. Trent Thomas fired 7 to 10 times into the torso of AWAD.
The dead body of AWAD was brought to the Iraqi police station after Sgt Hutchins called back to his headquarters to inform them of the engagement. The Iraqi police did not venture outside at this time of the day due to the dangers they would encounter.
Sgt Hutchins returned to his base camp and filled out his after action report was submitted to his officers.
Sgt Hutchins was later relieved of his normal duties for the night only to be woken up and brought to Col Looney.
The Iraqi police had received a report of a murder and filed a complaint to the American authorities that AWAD was murdered by these Marines.
Marine representatives and Iraqi police returned to the location of the short firefight and observed the body of AWAD inside the hole he was near.
The body was duct taped at the hands and feet and had bullet wounds in the head and torso.
Sgt Hutchins was interviewed by NCIS. He referred to his after action report to detail his side of the story.
The Iraqi police claimed they received a complaint from the family of AWAD that he was murdered.
After the Marines arrived in the United States, the body of the dead Iraqi identified as AWAD was exhumed and found to have been tampered with or had body parts missing, including it's head. The body was then given a full autopsy in the United States.
Physical descriptions of AWAD did not agree, especially how he was identified and what the autopsy showed.
The family claimed that AWAD was a grandfather with 10 decendants and that he was a police officer under Saddam Hussien and a Baath party member. He is alleged to have injuries from 3 unrelated sources, all which contradict each other, to include a rod in his leg from breaking it falling out of a tree as a child, an injury from the Iran/Iraq war, and injuries received as a police officer in the line of duty.
This is the greatest case of the unbroken chain of evidence, there is no way they knew who they had at that point from body descriptions, no forensic evidence that was saved, no ballistic evidence taken, and viola; the family members who once came forward to 'identify' the body had disappeared, also.
Yet, the body did not have the rod in its leg as the family insisted, nor did the body style match, or the hair pattern on the body, Nor could they match a head because when they shipped the body back home, it had no head.
In short, the body did not match the description given by the family which was paid $25,000; $2,500.00 per family member, nor was the defense allowed to use video from the UAV’s overhead in their defense although the prosecution was allowed to claim the UAV’s showed then hiding the man before killing him.
The Govt didn’t know who was actually killed and had zero forensic evidence to support them, including a body that didn’t match the description given by alleged family members.
The NCIS claimed that UAV’s overhead showed the Marines hiding the man in the hole with their own bodies, lying on top of him so the UAV would not see him: Question? How in the world did those Marines hear a UAV circling at 10,000 or even 5000 feet or even 1000 feet or lower and how did they know where the camera was pointed to know when to hide the man when it was near?
Question? Why did the NCIS present this UAV footage as evidence in only statement form, NOT show any video, and NOT release the UAV video to the defense so they could use any video in their own defense? If the video was so damning to the Marines, why not show it to prove all accounts of their story are false and refuse plea bargains and go for convictions?
You do NOT go from MURDER charges and plea bargain down to assault if you have evidence of MURDER! Knowing the body did not match the description given by the family which was paid $25,000, $2,500.00 per family member; where is due process when you realize you don’t have the body you thought you did but still insist that your men killed him?
The family claimed that AWAD was confronted by the Marines after failing to find GOWAD. The Marines were then said to have beaten AWAD, dragged him around the small neighborhood to avoid being seen by the observation aircraft overhead after he was duct taped by his hands and feet and then placed in the hole near the house and shot to death.
AWAD was supposed to have been forced to walk on his own according to accounts written by several Marines who took plea bargains and was dragged around while duct taped according to other accounts by these Marines. None of the accounts agreed.
The identity of the dead Iraqi is PARAMOUNT to their innocence or guilt. The NCIS case is that they failed to find Gowad, broke into a house and pulled out Awad and killed him and faked the killing zone. The identity of who Awad is and his physical description is an essential point here, along with whether they actually have AWAD's body at all..
Awad was supposed to have severe injuries from several different sources, none which agree: Iran/Iraq war, falling out of a tree, 25 years as an Iraqi Policeman in the Baath party The autopsy showed NONE of those injuries. That means right from the get go the story about whom he was is phony, the so-called "family" lied, the NCIS lied or made a major error. The entire origin of the murder charge was based on the family claiming that Awad was found in a hole, dead after being taken out in the middle of the night and killed.
People who lived in that house and adjacent homes DID NOT know who the person was. It was only 2 days later that a so-called 'family' member identified the body as Awad, and the story of who he was and his family relations began. These same people who claimed to be family and agreed to testify against the Marines in trial all DISAPPEARED when the time came to testify.
If he is NOT family, and the autopsy proved the alleged family lied about injuries of who Awad is supposed to have, and he WASNT family, then the first part of the accusation is false and these MArines story should have been considered true.
You never heard the media report that families of civilians who are accidentally killed get approx $2.5K, but someone came forward and claimed to be family, gave descriptions of the man who was supposed to be murdered that never matched the body, and you only heard a short blurb on the Thomas Trial that they could no longer call the dead Iraqi AWAD because NCIS was forced to admit they NEVER had ANY forensic evidence on this person: no ballistics, no identification, no matching prints, no proven family ties, all so-called family member disappeared and refused to testify in the US.
Sgt Hutchins and his squad were then detained by NCIS in CONEX box type confinement areas with no rest, food, bathroom facilities or water for periods up to 18 hours a day during their interrogation by NCIS.
This continued for 2 weeks until all signed statements incriminating themselves in these accusations, except for Magincalda, who refused to give a statement to NCIS.
Sgt Hutchins was told that if he requested a lawyer or legal counsel his interrogation and treatment by NCIS would be more severe.
Most of the statements given by these Marines were to allow water and bathroom privileges. Only a few of the statements given agreed with the government's position.
All were later released to be flown home under their own recognisense, taking a commercial flight which had a 24 hour stopover in Baltimore. They had no security detail watching them.
They reported to Camp Pendleton for duty and were immediately arrested and taken to the brig in shackles on their hands and feet and placed in solitary.
During this time in the brig, NCIS continued their acts of sleep deprivation in their interrogation of these Marines, and also used solitary confinement and lack of contact with the outside world to include the failure to inform the families of these MArines that they were being held, in an effort to get these Marines to confess to the apparent crime against AWAD.
Due to the lack of contact from these Marines while being held, the families tried calling the base to find out about their sons, only to not be placed in touch with them.
Sgt Hutchins was finally able to contact his family after 30 days in the brig. The families have never received any formal communication from any Marine Corps source or the Red Cross concerning their sons. At this point, phone calls were made and the families contacted civilian lawyers.
While held in the brig, a Col Navarre (sp?) entered the solitary confinement area and tried to coerce these Marines into making statements against their case without any legal counsel present. Col Navarre tried to get these Marines to admit their guilt and advised them to plead guilty in order to save themselves from severe punishment under court martial. The Col claimed he was present on a health and safety inspection.
It must be recalled that while held in solitary, these MArines were told they would not be allowed civilian attornies as a natural course of action and that if their families
arranged for attornies for them that they would be treated more harshly.
These Marines were held in shackles in their cells for 30 days in solitary confinement, and afterward released into separate cells on separate floors of the brig.
While being held in these separate cells, they were lied to by investigators to get them to confess to these crimes or incriminate others by telling them that others were already cooperating with the prosecution.
The phone system in the brig was not adequate for regular phone calls. All phone calls must be made as a collect call, costing over $800 a month in phone bills for the Hutchins family.
As time continued, the Marins and Corpsman involved started to take plea bargains to get themselves out of jail.
Remember, they all faced murder charges at the start.
HM3 Bacos, the Corpsman took the first plea bargain and was released from the brig and then stationed in Miramar, California. Bacos was said to have been pressured by his wife and the prosecutor. It is unknown if he had an exemplary record or a questionable one.
Jodka took the plea deal under pressure from his family and prosecutors. It allowed for a General Under Honorable discharge from the Marine Corps. Remember,
Jodka was originally charged with murder, how do you go from a murder charge to a plea bargain that allows a general under honorable discharge?
Shumate took a plea bargain and received a general discharge.
Jackson took a plea bargain and received a general discharge.
Rob Pennington took a plea bargain and received a suspended 8 year sentence and a dishonorable discharge.
Magincalda’s plea agreement he almost took was going to have him in shackles touring Marine bases telling people how evil he was while wearing shackles to the ‘audience’, but he refused, and thankfully he is out of the brig now.
While in the brig, Sgt Hutchins was allowed to marry. His escort to the chapel where the ceremony was to be held was kept under watch with snipers in case he tried to escape. During the ceremony, he was kept in shackles and hand cuffs.
The following points must be addressed concerning this case: The statements they held against Hutchins were coerced under duress and 2 of his fellow Marines testified to just that in their trial. Evidence that they were following orders was destroyed and Lt Phan testified to that.
Why did Lt Phan testify an order existed? Where is due process when their Lt testifies that he issued the orders? When the Corps releases the copy of the order that Lt Phan had and that several members of that squad testified to under oath after they were released from the brig, then I will believe the Corps.
While all this is going on, the orders issued by Lt Phan were on a thumb drive. This thumb drive was handed over to NCIS. It since disappeared. These orders were the proof that they were on a snatch and grab mission with permission to kill or capture a known terrorist. This evidence disappeared, evidence that would exonerate these
Marines, yet NO ONE was written up for this loss of key evidence. Due to the classified nature of the orders, the command would NOT re release a copy of the orders given to Lt Phan! ( This all was part of testimony given in the court martials ) At the trial of Sgt Hutchins, the former JAG lawyer for Hutchins refused to press questions of Lt Phan and let him off the stand with no detailed questions on the thumb drive.
The isolation of these Marines, the coerced statements made under duress violated their rights to avoid self incrimination. In addition, each of them had a former JAG atty working for them after the 1st month of confinement in Pendleton. EACH atty suggested they PLEA bargain, not one said they would fight to the end for their innocence.
One family was strung along for almost a full year, holding charities to raise money for their legal defense of their son, to be told one day or two before the Art 32 hearing that if the lawyer didn't get a 6 figure sum, he would be unable to continue the case and that the Marine must plea out.
At the trial of Sgt Larry Hutchins, the following statements were made by other Marines in the case:2 of the Marines previously who had taken plea bargains in the Hamdania Case, (pendleton 8), testified yesterday, under oath, that they were coerced into making false statements under penalty of life in prison.
Concerning LCpl Jodka, Pfc Jackson, they were commanded by NCIS to make the self incriminating statements as a part of their plea bargain, and they testified to this in the trial of Sgt Hutchins!
This is HUGE, it proves they were set up from the start
They testified that their orders were to capture or kill the insurgent, and when they did, the NCIS agent ORDERED them to write down the mans name, not even knowing who he was!
They testified that NCIS ignored the truth and hung them intentionally and that they took the plea bargains because they were facing life in prison They started saying they were guilty when they were told to, as 19 year old LCpl’s , that they would be facing life in prison despite the fact that the Govt didn’t know who was actually killed and had zero forensic evidence to support them, including a body that didn’t match the description given by alleged family members.
Nor was the defense allowed to use video from the UAV’s overhead in their defense although the prosecution was allowed to claim the UAV’s showed then hiding the
man before killing him... the body did not match the description given by the family which was paid $25,000, $2,500.00 per family member.
Why did all the Marines in their initial statements tell about the order to apprehend the known terrorist suspect? Where is due process when you cannot confront your accuser? Where is due process when you are considered guilty before you are considered innocent? Where is due process when you realize you don’t have the body you thought you did but still insist that your men killed him?
Where is due process when you hold Marines in CONEX boxes for 18 hours a day with no water or head calls or food until they sign confessions? Where is due process when NCIS is forced to admit they falsified statements about Marines distributing leaflets concerning apprehending insurgents to only later realize that LCpl’s cannot have access to KINKOS in Iraq...but Battalion does, and then STILL uses it against the Marines?
Each Marine and Sailor was charged with MURDER at first and all except Hutchins were allowed to plea bargain, leading any intelligent person to believe that they were looking for a political scapegoat. The failure of any single officer to ask the men to plead innocent if they were?
NOT ONE JAG lawyer ever went for an innocent plea because they all went for pleas, yet they tell their families they are innocent? There is most certainly a legal order to kill an insurgent who shot at you There is most certainly an order that releases you when your orders were to apprehend a known terrorist who was previously held on several occasions and who was suspected of exploding an IED the day before killing Marines and if he resisted the use of deadly force was authorized.
This is a WAR, not a drug bust There is most certainly legal protection when ordered to shoot back when someone tried to kill you You have never heard that from the media because the NCIS destroyed the orders to do just that, to apprehend a known terrorist who was suspected in the previous days IED explosion and when they went to the address, someone was digging a hole and held up a weapon and shot at them.
The families could not comment publicly during the trials, and also, much information could not be revealed during the trial because it would possibly be illegal to reveal things during the case. So, what information that was cleared through the lawyers was released and made public when we could.
In short, my story is not complete, these Marines were denied the presumption of innocence by their own country, denied access to evidence that would exonerate them, the testimony of people who disappeared when trial time came was given more weight than the testimony of the Marines, their statements were coerced and that has been confirmed by each Marine who has been released from the Brig in public statements, actual evidence submitted had to be thrown out yet the charges were re-applied as the murder of an unknown man; that in itself is criminal and against the rules of court martial as I posted.
And it also makes all statements of the alleged family members inadmissible, the prosecutions timeline and claim that the alleged Iraqi was taken from his house was now inadmissible due to the lack of knowledge of just who was killed and BY whom due to the broken chain of evidence of a body that came to the US missing it's head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGgeI7OnaU
video part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhs6b479wmc
My friends, this is the documentary I was telling you about. It is still on the cutting room floor. This is the story of the 7 Marines and 1 Corpsman who were accused of murder of a single man where his identity was always in question along with so-called witness statements. It also includes falsified information from NCIS that they tried to use against these Marines.
What I have below is a compilation of mine to try to make a timeline of events and consequences according to private interviews with the members of the Pendleton 8 and their families.
On April 26, 2006, in Hamdania, Iraq, at about 0230 ( local ), Sgt Hutchins was on patrol with his Marines to find an insurgent named GOWAD, a person who was on a terrorist watch list and was held previously 3 times.
Sgt Hutchins and his squad received an intelligence briefing to apprehend or kill a known terrorist, GOWAD in this nightime operation.
Their intelligence briefing was given by his senior officer, Lt Phan, who had the pertinent information of this intelligence on a flash drive for his computer.
These guys were ordered on a mission by their Lt, found an insurgent, engaged him, and within a day had a 'family' member claim their parent was missing. At the scene, when the Marines were processing the body for travel to the body dump, NO ONE in the adjacent house at the scene identified the body or had any clue who it was.
After someone claiming to be family came forward, the claims of the man being dragged from the house kicking and screaming came out from the same people who claimed on the scene they didn't know who it was.
As they approached the known location of GOWAD, the only person they observed initially was an elderly woman outside of house of AWAD, the cousin of an Iraqi named GOWAD.
When the patrol arrived at AWAD'S house, they observed AWAD standing aside the street near a hole. AWAD then turned and fired upon the Marines.
AWAD turned and ran inside the nearest house, owned by GOWAD. The Marines followed and did a combat entry into the house to catch the person who just shot at them.
AWAD turned and fired and the Marines returned fire and killed AWAD. All members of the squad fired upon this man. Sgt Hutchins performed the 'dead check', firing his weapon 3 times into the insurgent to ensure he was dead. Trent Thomas fired 7 to 10 times into the torso of AWAD.
The dead body of AWAD was brought to the Iraqi police station after Sgt Hutchins called back to his headquarters to inform them of the engagement. The Iraqi police did not venture outside at this time of the day due to the dangers they would encounter.
Sgt Hutchins returned to his base camp and filled out his after action report was submitted to his officers.
Sgt Hutchins was later relieved of his normal duties for the night only to be woken up and brought to Col Looney.
The Iraqi police had received a report of a murder and filed a complaint to the American authorities that AWAD was murdered by these Marines.
Marine representatives and Iraqi police returned to the location of the short firefight and observed the body of AWAD inside the hole he was near.
The body was duct taped at the hands and feet and had bullet wounds in the head and torso.
Sgt Hutchins was interviewed by NCIS. He referred to his after action report to detail his side of the story.
The Iraqi police claimed they received a complaint from the family of AWAD that he was murdered.
After the Marines arrived in the United States, the body of the dead Iraqi identified as AWAD was exhumed and found to have been tampered with or had body parts missing, including it's head. The body was then given a full autopsy in the United States.
Physical descriptions of AWAD did not agree, especially how he was identified and what the autopsy showed.
The family claimed that AWAD was a grandfather with 10 decendants and that he was a police officer under Saddam Hussien and a Baath party member. He is alleged to have injuries from 3 unrelated sources, all which contradict each other, to include a rod in his leg from breaking it falling out of a tree as a child, an injury from the Iran/Iraq war, and injuries received as a police officer in the line of duty.
This is the greatest case of the unbroken chain of evidence, there is no way they knew who they had at that point from body descriptions, no forensic evidence that was saved, no ballistic evidence taken, and viola; the family members who once came forward to 'identify' the body had disappeared, also.
Yet, the body did not have the rod in its leg as the family insisted, nor did the body style match, or the hair pattern on the body, Nor could they match a head because when they shipped the body back home, it had no head.
In short, the body did not match the description given by the family which was paid $25,000; $2,500.00 per family member, nor was the defense allowed to use video from the UAV’s overhead in their defense although the prosecution was allowed to claim the UAV’s showed then hiding the man before killing him.
The Govt didn’t know who was actually killed and had zero forensic evidence to support them, including a body that didn’t match the description given by alleged family members.
The NCIS claimed that UAV’s overhead showed the Marines hiding the man in the hole with their own bodies, lying on top of him so the UAV would not see him: Question? How in the world did those Marines hear a UAV circling at 10,000 or even 5000 feet or even 1000 feet or lower and how did they know where the camera was pointed to know when to hide the man when it was near?
Question? Why did the NCIS present this UAV footage as evidence in only statement form, NOT show any video, and NOT release the UAV video to the defense so they could use any video in their own defense? If the video was so damning to the Marines, why not show it to prove all accounts of their story are false and refuse plea bargains and go for convictions?
You do NOT go from MURDER charges and plea bargain down to assault if you have evidence of MURDER! Knowing the body did not match the description given by the family which was paid $25,000, $2,500.00 per family member; where is due process when you realize you don’t have the body you thought you did but still insist that your men killed him?
The family claimed that AWAD was confronted by the Marines after failing to find GOWAD. The Marines were then said to have beaten AWAD, dragged him around the small neighborhood to avoid being seen by the observation aircraft overhead after he was duct taped by his hands and feet and then placed in the hole near the house and shot to death.
AWAD was supposed to have been forced to walk on his own according to accounts written by several Marines who took plea bargains and was dragged around while duct taped according to other accounts by these Marines. None of the accounts agreed.
The identity of the dead Iraqi is PARAMOUNT to their innocence or guilt. The NCIS case is that they failed to find Gowad, broke into a house and pulled out Awad and killed him and faked the killing zone. The identity of who Awad is and his physical description is an essential point here, along with whether they actually have AWAD's body at all..
Awad was supposed to have severe injuries from several different sources, none which agree: Iran/Iraq war, falling out of a tree, 25 years as an Iraqi Policeman in the Baath party The autopsy showed NONE of those injuries. That means right from the get go the story about whom he was is phony, the so-called "family" lied, the NCIS lied or made a major error. The entire origin of the murder charge was based on the family claiming that Awad was found in a hole, dead after being taken out in the middle of the night and killed.
People who lived in that house and adjacent homes DID NOT know who the person was. It was only 2 days later that a so-called 'family' member identified the body as Awad, and the story of who he was and his family relations began. These same people who claimed to be family and agreed to testify against the Marines in trial all DISAPPEARED when the time came to testify.
If he is NOT family, and the autopsy proved the alleged family lied about injuries of who Awad is supposed to have, and he WASNT family, then the first part of the accusation is false and these MArines story should have been considered true.
You never heard the media report that families of civilians who are accidentally killed get approx $2.5K, but someone came forward and claimed to be family, gave descriptions of the man who was supposed to be murdered that never matched the body, and you only heard a short blurb on the Thomas Trial that they could no longer call the dead Iraqi AWAD because NCIS was forced to admit they NEVER had ANY forensic evidence on this person: no ballistics, no identification, no matching prints, no proven family ties, all so-called family member disappeared and refused to testify in the US.
Sgt Hutchins and his squad were then detained by NCIS in CONEX box type confinement areas with no rest, food, bathroom facilities or water for periods up to 18 hours a day during their interrogation by NCIS.
This continued for 2 weeks until all signed statements incriminating themselves in these accusations, except for Magincalda, who refused to give a statement to NCIS.
Sgt Hutchins was told that if he requested a lawyer or legal counsel his interrogation and treatment by NCIS would be more severe.
Most of the statements given by these Marines were to allow water and bathroom privileges. Only a few of the statements given agreed with the government's position.
All were later released to be flown home under their own recognisense, taking a commercial flight which had a 24 hour stopover in Baltimore. They had no security detail watching them.
They reported to Camp Pendleton for duty and were immediately arrested and taken to the brig in shackles on their hands and feet and placed in solitary.
During this time in the brig, NCIS continued their acts of sleep deprivation in their interrogation of these Marines, and also used solitary confinement and lack of contact with the outside world to include the failure to inform the families of these MArines that they were being held, in an effort to get these Marines to confess to the apparent crime against AWAD.
Due to the lack of contact from these Marines while being held, the families tried calling the base to find out about their sons, only to not be placed in touch with them.
Sgt Hutchins was finally able to contact his family after 30 days in the brig. The families have never received any formal communication from any Marine Corps source or the Red Cross concerning their sons. At this point, phone calls were made and the families contacted civilian lawyers.
While held in the brig, a Col Navarre (sp?) entered the solitary confinement area and tried to coerce these Marines into making statements against their case without any legal counsel present. Col Navarre tried to get these Marines to admit their guilt and advised them to plead guilty in order to save themselves from severe punishment under court martial. The Col claimed he was present on a health and safety inspection.
It must be recalled that while held in solitary, these MArines were told they would not be allowed civilian attornies as a natural course of action and that if their families
arranged for attornies for them that they would be treated more harshly.
These Marines were held in shackles in their cells for 30 days in solitary confinement, and afterward released into separate cells on separate floors of the brig.
While being held in these separate cells, they were lied to by investigators to get them to confess to these crimes or incriminate others by telling them that others were already cooperating with the prosecution.
The phone system in the brig was not adequate for regular phone calls. All phone calls must be made as a collect call, costing over $800 a month in phone bills for the Hutchins family.
As time continued, the Marins and Corpsman involved started to take plea bargains to get themselves out of jail.
Remember, they all faced murder charges at the start.
HM3 Bacos, the Corpsman took the first plea bargain and was released from the brig and then stationed in Miramar, California. Bacos was said to have been pressured by his wife and the prosecutor. It is unknown if he had an exemplary record or a questionable one.
Jodka took the plea deal under pressure from his family and prosecutors. It allowed for a General Under Honorable discharge from the Marine Corps. Remember,
Jodka was originally charged with murder, how do you go from a murder charge to a plea bargain that allows a general under honorable discharge?
Shumate took a plea bargain and received a general discharge.
Jackson took a plea bargain and received a general discharge.
Rob Pennington took a plea bargain and received a suspended 8 year sentence and a dishonorable discharge.
Magincalda’s plea agreement he almost took was going to have him in shackles touring Marine bases telling people how evil he was while wearing shackles to the ‘audience’, but he refused, and thankfully he is out of the brig now.
While in the brig, Sgt Hutchins was allowed to marry. His escort to the chapel where the ceremony was to be held was kept under watch with snipers in case he tried to escape. During the ceremony, he was kept in shackles and hand cuffs.
The following points must be addressed concerning this case: The statements they held against Hutchins were coerced under duress and 2 of his fellow Marines testified to just that in their trial. Evidence that they were following orders was destroyed and Lt Phan testified to that.
Why did Lt Phan testify an order existed? Where is due process when their Lt testifies that he issued the orders? When the Corps releases the copy of the order that Lt Phan had and that several members of that squad testified to under oath after they were released from the brig, then I will believe the Corps.
While all this is going on, the orders issued by Lt Phan were on a thumb drive. This thumb drive was handed over to NCIS. It since disappeared. These orders were the proof that they were on a snatch and grab mission with permission to kill or capture a known terrorist. This evidence disappeared, evidence that would exonerate these
Marines, yet NO ONE was written up for this loss of key evidence. Due to the classified nature of the orders, the command would NOT re release a copy of the orders given to Lt Phan! ( This all was part of testimony given in the court martials ) At the trial of Sgt Hutchins, the former JAG lawyer for Hutchins refused to press questions of Lt Phan and let him off the stand with no detailed questions on the thumb drive.
The isolation of these Marines, the coerced statements made under duress violated their rights to avoid self incrimination. In addition, each of them had a former JAG atty working for them after the 1st month of confinement in Pendleton. EACH atty suggested they PLEA bargain, not one said they would fight to the end for their innocence.
One family was strung along for almost a full year, holding charities to raise money for their legal defense of their son, to be told one day or two before the Art 32 hearing that if the lawyer didn't get a 6 figure sum, he would be unable to continue the case and that the Marine must plea out.
At the trial of Sgt Larry Hutchins, the following statements were made by other Marines in the case:2 of the Marines previously who had taken plea bargains in the Hamdania Case, (pendleton 8), testified yesterday, under oath, that they were coerced into making false statements under penalty of life in prison.
Concerning LCpl Jodka, Pfc Jackson, they were commanded by NCIS to make the self incriminating statements as a part of their plea bargain, and they testified to this in the trial of Sgt Hutchins!
This is HUGE, it proves they were set up from the start
They testified that their orders were to capture or kill the insurgent, and when they did, the NCIS agent ORDERED them to write down the mans name, not even knowing who he was!
They testified that NCIS ignored the truth and hung them intentionally and that they took the plea bargains because they were facing life in prison They started saying they were guilty when they were told to, as 19 year old LCpl’s , that they would be facing life in prison despite the fact that the Govt didn’t know who was actually killed and had zero forensic evidence to support them, including a body that didn’t match the description given by alleged family members.
Nor was the defense allowed to use video from the UAV’s overhead in their defense although the prosecution was allowed to claim the UAV’s showed then hiding the
man before killing him... the body did not match the description given by the family which was paid $25,000, $2,500.00 per family member.
Why did all the Marines in their initial statements tell about the order to apprehend the known terrorist suspect? Where is due process when you cannot confront your accuser? Where is due process when you are considered guilty before you are considered innocent? Where is due process when you realize you don’t have the body you thought you did but still insist that your men killed him?
Where is due process when you hold Marines in CONEX boxes for 18 hours a day with no water or head calls or food until they sign confessions? Where is due process when NCIS is forced to admit they falsified statements about Marines distributing leaflets concerning apprehending insurgents to only later realize that LCpl’s cannot have access to KINKOS in Iraq...but Battalion does, and then STILL uses it against the Marines?
Each Marine and Sailor was charged with MURDER at first and all except Hutchins were allowed to plea bargain, leading any intelligent person to believe that they were looking for a political scapegoat. The failure of any single officer to ask the men to plead innocent if they were?
NOT ONE JAG lawyer ever went for an innocent plea because they all went for pleas, yet they tell their families they are innocent? There is most certainly a legal order to kill an insurgent who shot at you There is most certainly an order that releases you when your orders were to apprehend a known terrorist who was previously held on several occasions and who was suspected of exploding an IED the day before killing Marines and if he resisted the use of deadly force was authorized.
This is a WAR, not a drug bust There is most certainly legal protection when ordered to shoot back when someone tried to kill you You have never heard that from the media because the NCIS destroyed the orders to do just that, to apprehend a known terrorist who was suspected in the previous days IED explosion and when they went to the address, someone was digging a hole and held up a weapon and shot at them.
The families could not comment publicly during the trials, and also, much information could not be revealed during the trial because it would possibly be illegal to reveal things during the case. So, what information that was cleared through the lawyers was released and made public when we could.
In short, my story is not complete, these Marines were denied the presumption of innocence by their own country, denied access to evidence that would exonerate them, the testimony of people who disappeared when trial time came was given more weight than the testimony of the Marines, their statements were coerced and that has been confirmed by each Marine who has been released from the Brig in public statements, actual evidence submitted had to be thrown out yet the charges were re-applied as the murder of an unknown man; that in itself is criminal and against the rules of court martial as I posted.
And it also makes all statements of the alleged family members inadmissible, the prosecutions timeline and claim that the alleged Iraqi was taken from his house was now inadmissible due to the lack of knowledge of just who was killed and BY whom due to the broken chain of evidence of a body that came to the US missing it's head.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
RESISTING ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW
Westerners opposed to the application of the Islamic law (the Shari'a) watch with dismay as it goes from strength to strength in their countries - harems increasingly accepted, a church leader endorsing Islamic law, a judge referring to the Koran, clandestine Muslim courts meting out justice.
What can be done to stop the progress of this medieval legal system so deeply at odds with modern life, one that oppresses women and turns non-Muslims into second-class citizens?
A first step is for Westerners to mount a united front against the Shari'a. Facing near-unanimous hostility, Islamists back down. For one example, note the retreat last week by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a dispute concerning guide dogs used by the blind.
Muslims traditionally consider dogs impure animals to be avoided, creating an aversion that becomes problematic when Muslim store-owners or taxi drivers deny service to blind Westerners relying on service dogs. I have collected 15 such cases on my weblog, at "Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs": five from the United States (New Orleans, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Brooksville, Fl.; Everett, Wash.); four from Canada (Vancouver, twice in Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Alberta); three from the United Kingdom (Cambridge, twice in London); two from Australia (Melbourne, Sydney); and one from Norway (Oslo).
News accounts quote Muslim cabbies rudely rejecting blind would-be passengers, yelling at them, "No dog, No dog, Get out, get out"; "Get that dog out of here"; and "No dogs, no dogs." The blind find themselves rejected, humiliated, abandoned, insulted, or even injured, left in the rain, dropped in the middle of nowhere, made late for an appointment, or caused to miss a flight. Islamist organizations initially responded to this problem by supporting anti-canine cabbies.
The Muslim Association of Canada pointed out how Muslims generally regard dog saliva as unclean. CAIR on one occasion echoed this assertion, claiming that "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer."
On another, the head of CAIR, Nihad Awad, declared that "People from the Middle East especially … have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs" and justified a driver rejecting a guide dog on the grounds that he "has a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. He acted in accordance with his religious beliefs."
HOWEVER, WHEN the police and the courts are called in, the legal rights of the blind to their basic needs and their dignity almost always trump the Muslim dislike for dogs. The Muslim proprietor or driver invariably finds himself admonished, fined, re-educated, warned, or even jailed.
The judge who found a cabby's behavior to be "a total disgrace" spoke for many.
CAIR, realizing that its approach had failed in the courts of both law and of public opinion, suddenly and nimbly switched sides. In a cynical maneuver, for example, it organized 300 cabbies in Minneapolis to provide free rides for participants at a National Federation of the Blind conference. (Unconvinced by this obvious ploy, a federation official responded: "We really are uncomfortable … with the offer of getting free rides.
We don't think that solves anything. We believe the cabdrivers need to realize that the law says they will not turn down a blind person.") And, finally, last week, the Canadian office of CAIR issued a statement urging Muslims to accommodate blind taxi passengers, quoting a board member that "Islam allows for dogs to be used by the visually impaired."
CAIR's capitulation contains an important lesson: When Westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific Islamic law or tradition and unite against it, Western Islamists must adjust to the majority's will. Guide dogs for the blind represent just one of many such consensus issues; others tend to involve women, such as husbands beating wives, the burka head coverings, female genital mutilation, and "honor" killings.
Western unity can also compel Islamists to denounce their preferred positions in areas such as slavery and Shari'a-compliant finances.
Other Islam-derived practices do not (yet) exist in the West but do prevail in the Muslim world. These include punishing a woman for being raped, exploiting children as suicide bombers, and executing offenders for such crimes as converting out of Islam, adultery, having a child out of wedlock, or witchcraft. Western solidarity can win concessions in these areas too.
If Westerners stick together, the Shari'a is doomed. If we do not, we are doomed.
What can be done to stop the progress of this medieval legal system so deeply at odds with modern life, one that oppresses women and turns non-Muslims into second-class citizens?
A first step is for Westerners to mount a united front against the Shari'a. Facing near-unanimous hostility, Islamists back down. For one example, note the retreat last week by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a dispute concerning guide dogs used by the blind.
Muslims traditionally consider dogs impure animals to be avoided, creating an aversion that becomes problematic when Muslim store-owners or taxi drivers deny service to blind Westerners relying on service dogs. I have collected 15 such cases on my weblog, at "Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs": five from the United States (New Orleans, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Brooksville, Fl.; Everett, Wash.); four from Canada (Vancouver, twice in Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Alberta); three from the United Kingdom (Cambridge, twice in London); two from Australia (Melbourne, Sydney); and one from Norway (Oslo).
News accounts quote Muslim cabbies rudely rejecting blind would-be passengers, yelling at them, "No dog, No dog, Get out, get out"; "Get that dog out of here"; and "No dogs, no dogs." The blind find themselves rejected, humiliated, abandoned, insulted, or even injured, left in the rain, dropped in the middle of nowhere, made late for an appointment, or caused to miss a flight. Islamist organizations initially responded to this problem by supporting anti-canine cabbies.
The Muslim Association of Canada pointed out how Muslims generally regard dog saliva as unclean. CAIR on one occasion echoed this assertion, claiming that "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer."
On another, the head of CAIR, Nihad Awad, declared that "People from the Middle East especially … have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs" and justified a driver rejecting a guide dog on the grounds that he "has a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. He acted in accordance with his religious beliefs."
HOWEVER, WHEN the police and the courts are called in, the legal rights of the blind to their basic needs and their dignity almost always trump the Muslim dislike for dogs. The Muslim proprietor or driver invariably finds himself admonished, fined, re-educated, warned, or even jailed.
The judge who found a cabby's behavior to be "a total disgrace" spoke for many.
CAIR, realizing that its approach had failed in the courts of both law and of public opinion, suddenly and nimbly switched sides. In a cynical maneuver, for example, it organized 300 cabbies in Minneapolis to provide free rides for participants at a National Federation of the Blind conference. (Unconvinced by this obvious ploy, a federation official responded: "We really are uncomfortable … with the offer of getting free rides.
We don't think that solves anything. We believe the cabdrivers need to realize that the law says they will not turn down a blind person.") And, finally, last week, the Canadian office of CAIR issued a statement urging Muslims to accommodate blind taxi passengers, quoting a board member that "Islam allows for dogs to be used by the visually impaired."
CAIR's capitulation contains an important lesson: When Westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific Islamic law or tradition and unite against it, Western Islamists must adjust to the majority's will. Guide dogs for the blind represent just one of many such consensus issues; others tend to involve women, such as husbands beating wives, the burka head coverings, female genital mutilation, and "honor" killings.
Western unity can also compel Islamists to denounce their preferred positions in areas such as slavery and Shari'a-compliant finances.
Other Islam-derived practices do not (yet) exist in the West but do prevail in the Muslim world. These include punishing a woman for being raped, exploiting children as suicide bombers, and executing offenders for such crimes as converting out of Islam, adultery, having a child out of wedlock, or witchcraft. Western solidarity can win concessions in these areas too.
If Westerners stick together, the Shari'a is doomed. If we do not, we are doomed.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
BRITAIN'S SELF-INFLICTED VULNERABILITY TO ISLAMIC TERROR
Flabby thinking opens doors to British terrorists, study finds.
A new report says 'flabby and bogus' government thinking has made the country vulnerable to attack from Islamist extremists.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/02/flabby_thinking_opens_doors_to.html
Britain has become a "soft touch" for home-grown terrorists because ministers have failed to tackle immigrant communities that refuse to integrate, according to a study published by the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi).
The think tank, which employs the wisdom of retired generals, former spy chiefs and diplomatic figures, argues that a loss of British values and national identity caused by "flabby and bogus" government thinking has made the country vulnerable to attack from Islamist extremists, the Telegraph reports on its front page today.
"Misplaced" policies on multiculturalism have failed to "lay down the line" to immigrants, leading to a fragmented society opposed by "implacable" terrorist enemies, the report says.
But a leader in the Telegraph, which probably has more retired generals, former spy chiefs and diplomatic figures among its readers than most papers, argues that although the report's analysis is sound, its prescription is less persuasive.
"The report's authors call for a constitutional re-structuring involving the creation of twin Whitehall and parliamentary committees to draw together 'all the threads of government relating to defence and security'. They liken it to the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee, which took interest rates out of the political arena.
"This is a dangerously flawed proposition. De-politicising defence and security by creating some cosy cross-party machinery actually means de-democratising it."
The Mail also splashes on the Rusi story and says that its "bleak assessment" follows two blows this week to Labour's anti-terror strategy. On Wednesday five Muslim men had their convictions for terrorism offences quashed.
Yesterday, the appeal court ruled that the Algerian pilot Lotfi Raissi was entitled to claim compensation from the British government after he was falsely accused of training 9/11 pilots and banged up in Belmash prison. He is now preparing to claim millions, the Mail says, for the devastating effect his arrest had on his career.
How could anyone believe he was a terrorist, asks the Times. "While other al-Qaeda suspects sat sullenly in the dock, Mr Raissi, then 27, sobbed uncontrollably as allegations now known to be utterly false were made by Crown lawyers acting on behalf of the US government ...
No one who came to know about his uncle's role in the front line against Islamist terrorism in Algeria could accept that this frightened young man was a follower of Osama bin Laden."
James Welch, the legal director of the human rights group Liberty, is quoted in the Guardian saying: "Luckily for Mr Raissi he was arrested before the new extradition arrangements under the Extradition Act 2003 came into force.
"If he were arrested now he would have been whisked off to the US without the possibility of a British court considering the strength of the charges against him."
Britain 'a soft touch for home grown terrorists
'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=5FZB1RB1MWQANQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/02/15/nterror115.xml&site=5&page=0By
Robert Winnett Deputy Political Editor
Britain has become a "soft touch" for home grown terrorists because ministers have failed to tackle immigrant communities that refuse to integrate, warns a report released today.
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a body of the country's leading military and diplomatic figures, says the loss of British values and national identity caused by "flabby and bogus" Government thinking has made the country vulnerable to attack from Islamic extremists.
"Misplaced" policies on multiculturalism have failed to "lay down the line" to immigrants, leading to a fragmented society opposed by "implacable" terrorist enemies, the report says.The stark warning - which comes just days after the Archbishop of Canterbury was plunged into a row over the adoption of sharia, or Islamic law, in Britain - will embarrass the Government.
RUSI, whose patron is the Queen, is one of the most respected and long-established defence research organisations in the world.
Gordon Brown, who is due to unveil his national security policy next week, has described the think-tank as "leading the debate about homeland security and global terrorism".
Its analysis represents the views of senior defence experts including Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, Vice Adml Sir Jeremy Blackham, Gen Sir Rupert Smith and Baroness Park, a former senior officer with MI6.
It was written by the Marquess of Salisbury and Professor Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics.
In addition to raising concerns over the threat from home-grown terrorists, the report warns that:
• The military is not receiving adequate funding and the Armed Forces are in a state of "chronic disrepair".
• Competition for energy, water and food from China and India raises significant questions for security policy.
• British reliance on a weakening UN, Nato and EU could leave this country vulnerable to emerging terrorist threats.
However, it is the vulnerable state of British society that attracts the most criticism.
"The UK presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society," the report says, and is "increasingly divided" on its history, national aims, values and political identity.
"That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate."
The report places most of the blame for this on a "lack of leadership from the majority, which, in misplaced deference to 'multiculturalism', failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism".
"The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without.
"We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."
The report also accuses ministers of "flabby and bogus strategic thinking" which has led to public money being spent in "perverse ways".
"All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links of confidence and support between the British people, their government and Britain's security and defence forces, than for many years," it says.
Citing the creation of the independent monetary policy committee at the Bank of England, RUSI concludes that the situation is so serious that "moves are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back out of the arena of short-term party politics".
"The range of threats and risks facing the UK, together with the experience of the past few years, suggest that measures to achieve that should go beyond changes in policy. Institutional changes are needed."
Last night, the report was welcomed by Baroness Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister and former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who said it showed how multiculturalism had been a "disaster" for Britain.
She said: "This report sends a powerful message to the Government that leadership is badly lacking at a time of significant threat to our country.
"The Conservatives agree that multiculturalism has been a disaster for national cohesion and has increased our vulnerability to the terrorist threat."
RUSI's report is the latest indication of the growing unease about Labour's counter-terrorism policies, which many believe have failed to stem the growth of home-grown terrorists.
The multiculturalist approach has been condemned by a wide array of figures from Trevor Phillips, the equalities watchdog, to John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.
The debate was re-ignited last week after Dr Rowan Williams said that adoption of parts of Sharia, or Islamic, law in Britain was "'unavoidable"' - a suggestion condemned across the political spectrum.
MI5 estimates that there are about 2,000 active terror supporters in Britain and claims that schoolchildren are being recruited by al-Qa'eda. RUSI formed the private seminar group to discuss Britain's security in the wake of the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 and the botched 21/7 terrorist attempt.
The report also draws attention to the "narrowly pre-empted attack on planes in 2006" and last year's car bomb attacks at Glasgow airport and London's West end.
"A declaration of war is almost inconceivable today, and yet both our defence and security services are in action against active forces, abroad and at home, at this moment," the report says.
RUSI, which is thought to represent the views of many current senior members of the Armed Forces, issues a call to Britons to re-establish a sense of identity. It states: "The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are.
Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent."
A new report says 'flabby and bogus' government thinking has made the country vulnerable to attack from Islamist extremists.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/02/flabby_thinking_opens_doors_to.html
Britain has become a "soft touch" for home-grown terrorists because ministers have failed to tackle immigrant communities that refuse to integrate, according to a study published by the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi).
The think tank, which employs the wisdom of retired generals, former spy chiefs and diplomatic figures, argues that a loss of British values and national identity caused by "flabby and bogus" government thinking has made the country vulnerable to attack from Islamist extremists, the Telegraph reports on its front page today.
"Misplaced" policies on multiculturalism have failed to "lay down the line" to immigrants, leading to a fragmented society opposed by "implacable" terrorist enemies, the report says.
But a leader in the Telegraph, which probably has more retired generals, former spy chiefs and diplomatic figures among its readers than most papers, argues that although the report's analysis is sound, its prescription is less persuasive.
"The report's authors call for a constitutional re-structuring involving the creation of twin Whitehall and parliamentary committees to draw together 'all the threads of government relating to defence and security'. They liken it to the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee, which took interest rates out of the political arena.
"This is a dangerously flawed proposition. De-politicising defence and security by creating some cosy cross-party machinery actually means de-democratising it."
The Mail also splashes on the Rusi story and says that its "bleak assessment" follows two blows this week to Labour's anti-terror strategy. On Wednesday five Muslim men had their convictions for terrorism offences quashed.
Yesterday, the appeal court ruled that the Algerian pilot Lotfi Raissi was entitled to claim compensation from the British government after he was falsely accused of training 9/11 pilots and banged up in Belmash prison. He is now preparing to claim millions, the Mail says, for the devastating effect his arrest had on his career.
How could anyone believe he was a terrorist, asks the Times. "While other al-Qaeda suspects sat sullenly in the dock, Mr Raissi, then 27, sobbed uncontrollably as allegations now known to be utterly false were made by Crown lawyers acting on behalf of the US government ...
No one who came to know about his uncle's role in the front line against Islamist terrorism in Algeria could accept that this frightened young man was a follower of Osama bin Laden."
James Welch, the legal director of the human rights group Liberty, is quoted in the Guardian saying: "Luckily for Mr Raissi he was arrested before the new extradition arrangements under the Extradition Act 2003 came into force.
"If he were arrested now he would have been whisked off to the US without the possibility of a British court considering the strength of the charges against him."
Britain 'a soft touch for home grown terrorists
'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=5FZB1RB1MWQANQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/02/15/nterror115.xml&site=5&page=0By
Robert Winnett Deputy Political Editor
Britain has become a "soft touch" for home grown terrorists because ministers have failed to tackle immigrant communities that refuse to integrate, warns a report released today.
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a body of the country's leading military and diplomatic figures, says the loss of British values and national identity caused by "flabby and bogus" Government thinking has made the country vulnerable to attack from Islamic extremists.
"Misplaced" policies on multiculturalism have failed to "lay down the line" to immigrants, leading to a fragmented society opposed by "implacable" terrorist enemies, the report says.The stark warning - which comes just days after the Archbishop of Canterbury was plunged into a row over the adoption of sharia, or Islamic law, in Britain - will embarrass the Government.
RUSI, whose patron is the Queen, is one of the most respected and long-established defence research organisations in the world.
Gordon Brown, who is due to unveil his national security policy next week, has described the think-tank as "leading the debate about homeland security and global terrorism".
Its analysis represents the views of senior defence experts including Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, Vice Adml Sir Jeremy Blackham, Gen Sir Rupert Smith and Baroness Park, a former senior officer with MI6.
It was written by the Marquess of Salisbury and Professor Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics.
In addition to raising concerns over the threat from home-grown terrorists, the report warns that:
• The military is not receiving adequate funding and the Armed Forces are in a state of "chronic disrepair".
• Competition for energy, water and food from China and India raises significant questions for security policy.
• British reliance on a weakening UN, Nato and EU could leave this country vulnerable to emerging terrorist threats.
However, it is the vulnerable state of British society that attracts the most criticism.
"The UK presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society," the report says, and is "increasingly divided" on its history, national aims, values and political identity.
"That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate."
The report places most of the blame for this on a "lack of leadership from the majority, which, in misplaced deference to 'multiculturalism', failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism".
"The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without.
"We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."
The report also accuses ministers of "flabby and bogus strategic thinking" which has led to public money being spent in "perverse ways".
"All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links of confidence and support between the British people, their government and Britain's security and defence forces, than for many years," it says.
Citing the creation of the independent monetary policy committee at the Bank of England, RUSI concludes that the situation is so serious that "moves are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back out of the arena of short-term party politics".
"The range of threats and risks facing the UK, together with the experience of the past few years, suggest that measures to achieve that should go beyond changes in policy. Institutional changes are needed."
Last night, the report was welcomed by Baroness Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister and former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who said it showed how multiculturalism had been a "disaster" for Britain.
She said: "This report sends a powerful message to the Government that leadership is badly lacking at a time of significant threat to our country.
"The Conservatives agree that multiculturalism has been a disaster for national cohesion and has increased our vulnerability to the terrorist threat."
RUSI's report is the latest indication of the growing unease about Labour's counter-terrorism policies, which many believe have failed to stem the growth of home-grown terrorists.
The multiculturalist approach has been condemned by a wide array of figures from Trevor Phillips, the equalities watchdog, to John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.
The debate was re-ignited last week after Dr Rowan Williams said that adoption of parts of Sharia, or Islamic, law in Britain was "'unavoidable"' - a suggestion condemned across the political spectrum.
MI5 estimates that there are about 2,000 active terror supporters in Britain and claims that schoolchildren are being recruited by al-Qa'eda. RUSI formed the private seminar group to discuss Britain's security in the wake of the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 and the botched 21/7 terrorist attempt.
The report also draws attention to the "narrowly pre-empted attack on planes in 2006" and last year's car bomb attacks at Glasgow airport and London's West end.
"A declaration of war is almost inconceivable today, and yet both our defence and security services are in action against active forces, abroad and at home, at this moment," the report says.
RUSI, which is thought to represent the views of many current senior members of the Armed Forces, issues a call to Britons to re-establish a sense of identity. It states: "The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are.
Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent."
Sunday, February 17, 2008
HISTORY & MEANING OF PALESTINE AND PALESTINIAN
The History and Meaning of 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian'
By Michael Bussio
"From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries..." - Professor Bernard Lewis, Princeton University
"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." -- Professor Philip Hatti, Arab historian to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946.
"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." - Delegate of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Security Council, 1956
"Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough." -- Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, author of "Myths of the Middle East"
There has never been a Palestinian state in the history of the region. Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity.
There is no language known as Palestinian.
There is no distinct Palestinian culture.
There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.
The "so-called" Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, etc.
Even the name Palestine came from the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 135 A.D. after Rome put down yet another Jewish revolt.
The Emperor, increasingly angered by the rebellious nature of Judah, Judea, and Samaria, became determined to break the back of the stiff-necked Jews once and for all.
When asked who the Jews most ardent enemies of the distant past were, the Emperor was told the Philistines; thus the name Palestina, which would later be morphed into the word Palestine.
(Alan Note: the Philistines have since become EXTINCT as a race or people)
Nearly eighteen hundred years later, Great Britain took over that part of the Middle East as a mandate from the League of Nations. The British chose to call the land Palestine.
It wasn't long before the various Arab tribes, native Egyptians, Syrians, and Turks living in the area adopted the word Palestine as if it were some ancient name passed down from their forefathers.
Strangely, the Arabs couldn't even pronounce it correctly, and used the fictional entity, Falastine.
The Word-"Palestine"
The word Palestine has never been used as a name of a nation or state, but rather as a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history.
The word Palestine comes from the name Peleshet. Peleshet appears frequently in the Bible and entered into English as "Philistine." It dates to the thirteenth century B.C. These people were thought to be the dangerous "Sea Peoples" that so threaten the Aegean, Egypt, Syria, and present day Israel, Turkey, and Lebanon.
Historians and archeologist believe these "Sea Peoples" originated from Greece and many of the Greek Islands.
From there they would raid the region for plunder and general destruction. Eventually, they would establish five independent city-states (including Gaza) on a narrow strip of land that came to be known as "Philistia."
The Greeks and Romans would call it Palestina. At no time were the Philistines of old ever considered to be Arabs.
They were not even Semites. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic, or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palestina" derived from Peleshet.
How Did The Land Of Israel Become "Palestine"?
In the First Century after the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Romans crushed the independent kingdom of Judea. Though the Jews had successfully created a nation state for the second time in their history (the first being that of King David and King Solomon), it was eventually smashed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian.
In the Emperor's haste to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea-Samaria (those areas that make up much of Israel today), Hadrian not only defeated the Israelite armies, slaughtered countless hundred thousands of Jews, and sent many more into exile, but took the name Palestina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel to further humiliate the Jews.
At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.
Though the Romans killed many Jews and sold many more into slavery, there was never a complete abandonment of the Land by its people. There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities living on the land.
A Short History of Palestine
Before the Greeks, before the Romans, before the land was known by its invented Roman name of "Palestina," more than a millennium ago, the region had been called the land of "Canaan."
The people known as Canaanites had the unique ability of creating small vibrant city-states, though none ever reached the grandeur and efficiency of the Greek city-states of antiquity. At times these small states were independent, but for much of their history, the Canaanite city-states were vassals of an Egyptian or Hittite king. In their entire history, the Canaanites never united into a single nation.
After the Hebrews were granted their freedom in the Exodus from Egypt nearly 3,300 years ago, they wandered the desert for the next 40 years before settling in the lands of Canaan. There they would form the first Jewish government, the first Jewish nation, out of the kingdoms of Israel, Judah, and later those of Judea and Samaria.
Israel-Judah-Judea and parts of Samaria united into one nation, thus forming the "only" independent, sovereign nation-state that has ever existed in the entire history of "Palestine" west of the Jordan River. (In Biblical times, Ammon, Moab, and Edom as well as Israel, had land east of the Jordan, but they disappeared in antiquity and no other nation took their place until the British invented Trans-Jordan in the 1920's.)
The Roman Empire would eventually extend its borders to the Middle East with the conquest of Judea, Judah, Israel, and Samaria. This region would become a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire.
After the death of Mohammad in the 600's A.D. the Arab-Muslim Caliph conquered Palastina from the Byzantines, and made it apart of their Arab-Muslim Empire. Because the Arabs had no name of their own for the area, they opted for adopting the name the Romans gave the region-Palastina, which the Arabs pronounced Falastine.
During this time in history, much of the mixed population of Palastina was converted to Islam and eventually was pressured to adopt the Arabic language.
Whether they liked it or not, the people of the region were subject to the whims of a distant dictator, the Caliph. The area of Palastina at no time ever became an Arabic nation, or ever became an independent Arabic state of any kind, or ever developed a distinct Arabic culture and/or society.
The year 1099 A.D. marked the first year of the First Crusade. It was also the year the Christian Crusaders conquered Palastina-Falastin. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule.
Though the Christian Crusader kingdom was politically independent, it never developed a national identity. For all intents and purposes, it remained only a military outpost of Christian Europe, and lasted less than one century.
Thereafter, Palastina-Falastin would be ruled as a subject province by Syria, then by the Egyptian dominated, ethnically mixed slave-warriors known as Mameluks, and finally by the Ottoman Turks.
Near the end of the First World War, the British, led by the likes of General Allenby and Lawrence of Arabia, took control of Palestine from the Ottomans. Thus with the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the war, its once-subject provinces came under the influence of the European powers.
Palestine was one of those subject provinces, and it came under the control of Great Britain who would now govern the territory on a temporary mandate from the League of Nations.
The Historical Home of the Jews
Over the centuries, many from the West traveled through the region. They gave an excellent account of what they saw there. And what they saw was depressing to say the least.
All mentioned the land as being empty, neglected, abandoned, and desolate. "Everything had fallen into disrepair and ruins," one visitor said. An English pilgrim stated in 1590, "There is nothing there (Jerusalem) to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining, and all the rest is grass, moss, and weeds".
The British consul to the region stated in 1857, "The country is in considerable degree, empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population."
It was not unusual to hear from travelers returning home from this area of the Middle East to assert that, "There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [Valley of Jezreel]-not for 30 miles in either direction...
One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings." It was reported in Europe and the United States that, "For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to the Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lays a moldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation ... untenanted by any living creature..."
One visitor declared that the "country was desolate whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds ... a silent, mournful expanse ... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere.
Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country..." Even Mark Twain was taken by the devastation of the region, stating in his 1867 trip to the Palestine territory, "Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes ... desolate and unlovely..."
The land would not maintain its "desolate and unlovely" image for long. With the coming of Jewish pioneers in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, who would join with the many Jews who already lived in the region from time immemorial, the land began to turn green. Their hard work and diligence in bringing the land back to life attracted many others in the Middle East who sought employment opportunities and a better lifestyle.
Thus many Arab migrants were drawn to the area in hopes of better conditions for their families.
"His Majesty's government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object..." This was the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It was validated by the League of Nations Mandate, and thereby committed the British Government to the principle that there would be a Jewish state in that portion of the Middle East. It also specified that those Jews living in the region be preserved and protected.
The area in question to which Britain had committed itself, Mandated Palestine, originally included all of what is now Jordan, as well as all of what is now Israel, Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza strip. This would change when Britain's wartime (First World War) ally, Emir Abdullah, was forced out of his Hashemite domain in Arabia by the Saudi family.
In order to preserve their alliance however, Great Britain opted for making the former king ruler of a great portion of Mandated Palestine and lands east of the Jordan River. There was no traditional or historic Arab name for this land, so it was called after the river: first Trans-Jordan and later just Jordan.
With the British violating their own declaration under the mandate, the proposed ancestral and National Home for the Jews was cut by more than 75 percent. From this point on, no Jew has ever been permitted to reside in Trans-Jordan/Jordan. In addition, the British progressively restricted Jews from building, farming, purchasing land, and living where they wanted within the region.
Nonetheless, following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel finally entered those lands long forbidden to them by the British and later by Jordan. Though one British government after another went about denouncing Jewish settlement as "illegal," the reality of the situation was that it was Great Britain who was acting in an illegal manner by prohibiting Jews from these parts of the ancestral Jewish National Home originally promised to them.
Just Who Is a Palestinian?
While Britain mandated over the region, it was the Jews, not any Arab tribe, who were known as Palestinians, including those Jews who served in the British Army during the Second World War, while various Arab groups aligned themselves with Nazi Germany.
More often than not, it was British policy brought on by fits of anti-Semitism, and Arab oil that continually restricted Jewish immigration. It was the 1939 White Paper that all but put an end to the admission of Jews to Palestine. When Jews needed a helping hand the most, it was this White Paper that became the death knell for Jews fleeing to the Promised Land, from the threat of annihilation at the hands of Hitler's executioners.
Jews-who might have lived, developed the nearly empty lands of Palestine, and prospered-were instead murdered in the death camps that stretched out over Nazi occupied Europe.
While the British, together with their Arab helpers, were closing the door to those Jews attempting to escape certain death in Europe, they were more than willing to permit massive illegal Arab immigration from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa into the ancestral lands of the Jews.
A famous myth states that the various Arab tribes have long established themselves in Palestine. Then the Jews came and drove them out. This is of course patently false, as any knowledgeable historian will tell us.
History enlightens us to the fact that it was the assortment of Arab tribes who entered the region through illegal immigration, and it was they, who with violence, "displaced" the Jews. In fact, this Arab violence was used against the Jews in areas where they (the Jews) had long been established. For example, the Jewish presence in the city of Hebron goes back to Abraham, and there has been an Israelite/Jewish community there since Joshua, long before it was King David's capital.
In 1929, Arab rioters, with the passive consent of the British, killed or drove out virtually the entire Jewish population.
The world community stood by and did nothing. The U.N. itself, no friend to Israel and certainly no friend to any Jew, declared that the massive increase in Arab population was very recent; that any Arab who had lived in Palestine for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugee."
In the early 1920's, the British created the state of Trans-Jordan, which eventually seized much of Judea and Samaria (i.e., the West Bank), East Jerusalem, and the old city. They killed or drove out every Jew. And the world community stood by and did nothing.
As far as the British and the Arabs were concerned, all lands from where the Jews had been driven, making the land Judenrein (cleansed of Jews), would remain so forever.
It is interesting to note by contrast, that Israel, eventually allotted only 17 percent of Mandated Palestine, had to absorb a large and growing population of Arab citizens.
From Palestine Back to Israel-Again
By the time of the "third" Jewish nation-Israel, the Arab tribes of the region had still not yet discovered their ancient nation of Falastin. The U.N. offered them (the Arab tribes) half of Palestine in 1947-half!
And what did the Arabs do with this offer to a non-people? They violently rejected it. Soon, all too soon, six Arab nations swept down upon the only Jewish state in the region with the intent of driving every last Jew into the sea.
The Arab goal was the complete eradication of Jewry in that portion of the Middle East. And the stated goal of the Arab tribes in the area was the creation of the 22nd Arab state known as Falastin.The Arabs failed in their attempt to massacre the Jewish population of Israel.
The Arab tribes of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) even forfeited any right to a nation of their own when their brethren in Trans-Jordan invaded the West Bank and East Jerusalem, occupied these territories, and killed or drove out all the Jews who had lived there since time immemorial.
The Jews were banned for life from traveling and praying before Jewish holy places in the region. In the meantime, another Arab nation, Egypt, succeeded in taking the Gaza Strip. Both Egypt and Jordan held onto conquered lands until 1967. In that same year, the Arab nations that surrounded Israel initiated another war of genocide.
The end result, however, was much like the first - the Arabs lost again in their bid to destroy the Jewish nation, and in consequence lost lands they had taken illegally in 1948.
In the nineteen-year span from 1948-1967, Jordan and Egypt never once, not once, offered to hand over Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip to make up an independent state of Falastin. Once more, the so-called "Palestinians" never sought it. And not one nation in the entire world ever suggested it, much less demanded it.
Since the end of the First World War, the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa have been given independent states in 99.5 percent of the land they claimed. They are determined that the remaining 0.5 percent be developed into yet another Arab nation at the expense of the lone Jewish state. To that end, the Palestine Liberation Organization was set up in 1964 with the express purpose of destroying the State of Israel and driving out of the region all the Jews.
The sad truth today is that history has been thrown aside. Many nations, including the United States, have engineered media and public opinion to accept without question; without any serious analysis, the new myth of an Arab nation of Falastin whose territory is unlawfully occupied by the Jews.
Michael Bussio is a former teacher of history. He has worked for INR at the US Department of State in Washington D.C. and lived in Israel.
By Michael Bussio
"From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries..." - Professor Bernard Lewis, Princeton University
"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." -- Professor Philip Hatti, Arab historian to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946.
"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." - Delegate of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Security Council, 1956
"Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough." -- Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, author of "Myths of the Middle East"
There has never been a Palestinian state in the history of the region. Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity.
There is no language known as Palestinian.
There is no distinct Palestinian culture.
There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.
The "so-called" Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, etc.
Even the name Palestine came from the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 135 A.D. after Rome put down yet another Jewish revolt.
The Emperor, increasingly angered by the rebellious nature of Judah, Judea, and Samaria, became determined to break the back of the stiff-necked Jews once and for all.
When asked who the Jews most ardent enemies of the distant past were, the Emperor was told the Philistines; thus the name Palestina, which would later be morphed into the word Palestine.
(Alan Note: the Philistines have since become EXTINCT as a race or people)
Nearly eighteen hundred years later, Great Britain took over that part of the Middle East as a mandate from the League of Nations. The British chose to call the land Palestine.
It wasn't long before the various Arab tribes, native Egyptians, Syrians, and Turks living in the area adopted the word Palestine as if it were some ancient name passed down from their forefathers.
Strangely, the Arabs couldn't even pronounce it correctly, and used the fictional entity, Falastine.
The Word-"Palestine"
The word Palestine has never been used as a name of a nation or state, but rather as a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history.
The word Palestine comes from the name Peleshet. Peleshet appears frequently in the Bible and entered into English as "Philistine." It dates to the thirteenth century B.C. These people were thought to be the dangerous "Sea Peoples" that so threaten the Aegean, Egypt, Syria, and present day Israel, Turkey, and Lebanon.
Historians and archeologist believe these "Sea Peoples" originated from Greece and many of the Greek Islands.
From there they would raid the region for plunder and general destruction. Eventually, they would establish five independent city-states (including Gaza) on a narrow strip of land that came to be known as "Philistia."
The Greeks and Romans would call it Palestina. At no time were the Philistines of old ever considered to be Arabs.
They were not even Semites. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic, or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palestina" derived from Peleshet.
How Did The Land Of Israel Become "Palestine"?
In the First Century after the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Romans crushed the independent kingdom of Judea. Though the Jews had successfully created a nation state for the second time in their history (the first being that of King David and King Solomon), it was eventually smashed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian.
In the Emperor's haste to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea-Samaria (those areas that make up much of Israel today), Hadrian not only defeated the Israelite armies, slaughtered countless hundred thousands of Jews, and sent many more into exile, but took the name Palestina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel to further humiliate the Jews.
At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.
Though the Romans killed many Jews and sold many more into slavery, there was never a complete abandonment of the Land by its people. There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities living on the land.
A Short History of Palestine
Before the Greeks, before the Romans, before the land was known by its invented Roman name of "Palestina," more than a millennium ago, the region had been called the land of "Canaan."
The people known as Canaanites had the unique ability of creating small vibrant city-states, though none ever reached the grandeur and efficiency of the Greek city-states of antiquity. At times these small states were independent, but for much of their history, the Canaanite city-states were vassals of an Egyptian or Hittite king. In their entire history, the Canaanites never united into a single nation.
After the Hebrews were granted their freedom in the Exodus from Egypt nearly 3,300 years ago, they wandered the desert for the next 40 years before settling in the lands of Canaan. There they would form the first Jewish government, the first Jewish nation, out of the kingdoms of Israel, Judah, and later those of Judea and Samaria.
Israel-Judah-Judea and parts of Samaria united into one nation, thus forming the "only" independent, sovereign nation-state that has ever existed in the entire history of "Palestine" west of the Jordan River. (In Biblical times, Ammon, Moab, and Edom as well as Israel, had land east of the Jordan, but they disappeared in antiquity and no other nation took their place until the British invented Trans-Jordan in the 1920's.)
The Roman Empire would eventually extend its borders to the Middle East with the conquest of Judea, Judah, Israel, and Samaria. This region would become a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire.
After the death of Mohammad in the 600's A.D. the Arab-Muslim Caliph conquered Palastina from the Byzantines, and made it apart of their Arab-Muslim Empire. Because the Arabs had no name of their own for the area, they opted for adopting the name the Romans gave the region-Palastina, which the Arabs pronounced Falastine.
During this time in history, much of the mixed population of Palastina was converted to Islam and eventually was pressured to adopt the Arabic language.
Whether they liked it or not, the people of the region were subject to the whims of a distant dictator, the Caliph. The area of Palastina at no time ever became an Arabic nation, or ever became an independent Arabic state of any kind, or ever developed a distinct Arabic culture and/or society.
The year 1099 A.D. marked the first year of the First Crusade. It was also the year the Christian Crusaders conquered Palastina-Falastin. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule.
Though the Christian Crusader kingdom was politically independent, it never developed a national identity. For all intents and purposes, it remained only a military outpost of Christian Europe, and lasted less than one century.
Thereafter, Palastina-Falastin would be ruled as a subject province by Syria, then by the Egyptian dominated, ethnically mixed slave-warriors known as Mameluks, and finally by the Ottoman Turks.
Near the end of the First World War, the British, led by the likes of General Allenby and Lawrence of Arabia, took control of Palestine from the Ottomans. Thus with the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the war, its once-subject provinces came under the influence of the European powers.
Palestine was one of those subject provinces, and it came under the control of Great Britain who would now govern the territory on a temporary mandate from the League of Nations.
The Historical Home of the Jews
Over the centuries, many from the West traveled through the region. They gave an excellent account of what they saw there. And what they saw was depressing to say the least.
All mentioned the land as being empty, neglected, abandoned, and desolate. "Everything had fallen into disrepair and ruins," one visitor said. An English pilgrim stated in 1590, "There is nothing there (Jerusalem) to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining, and all the rest is grass, moss, and weeds".
The British consul to the region stated in 1857, "The country is in considerable degree, empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population."
It was not unusual to hear from travelers returning home from this area of the Middle East to assert that, "There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [Valley of Jezreel]-not for 30 miles in either direction...
One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings." It was reported in Europe and the United States that, "For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to the Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lays a moldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation ... untenanted by any living creature..."
One visitor declared that the "country was desolate whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds ... a silent, mournful expanse ... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere.
Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country..." Even Mark Twain was taken by the devastation of the region, stating in his 1867 trip to the Palestine territory, "Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes ... desolate and unlovely..."
The land would not maintain its "desolate and unlovely" image for long. With the coming of Jewish pioneers in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, who would join with the many Jews who already lived in the region from time immemorial, the land began to turn green. Their hard work and diligence in bringing the land back to life attracted many others in the Middle East who sought employment opportunities and a better lifestyle.
Thus many Arab migrants were drawn to the area in hopes of better conditions for their families.
"His Majesty's government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object..." This was the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It was validated by the League of Nations Mandate, and thereby committed the British Government to the principle that there would be a Jewish state in that portion of the Middle East. It also specified that those Jews living in the region be preserved and protected.
The area in question to which Britain had committed itself, Mandated Palestine, originally included all of what is now Jordan, as well as all of what is now Israel, Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza strip. This would change when Britain's wartime (First World War) ally, Emir Abdullah, was forced out of his Hashemite domain in Arabia by the Saudi family.
In order to preserve their alliance however, Great Britain opted for making the former king ruler of a great portion of Mandated Palestine and lands east of the Jordan River. There was no traditional or historic Arab name for this land, so it was called after the river: first Trans-Jordan and later just Jordan.
With the British violating their own declaration under the mandate, the proposed ancestral and National Home for the Jews was cut by more than 75 percent. From this point on, no Jew has ever been permitted to reside in Trans-Jordan/Jordan. In addition, the British progressively restricted Jews from building, farming, purchasing land, and living where they wanted within the region.
Nonetheless, following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel finally entered those lands long forbidden to them by the British and later by Jordan. Though one British government after another went about denouncing Jewish settlement as "illegal," the reality of the situation was that it was Great Britain who was acting in an illegal manner by prohibiting Jews from these parts of the ancestral Jewish National Home originally promised to them.
Just Who Is a Palestinian?
While Britain mandated over the region, it was the Jews, not any Arab tribe, who were known as Palestinians, including those Jews who served in the British Army during the Second World War, while various Arab groups aligned themselves with Nazi Germany.
More often than not, it was British policy brought on by fits of anti-Semitism, and Arab oil that continually restricted Jewish immigration. It was the 1939 White Paper that all but put an end to the admission of Jews to Palestine. When Jews needed a helping hand the most, it was this White Paper that became the death knell for Jews fleeing to the Promised Land, from the threat of annihilation at the hands of Hitler's executioners.
Jews-who might have lived, developed the nearly empty lands of Palestine, and prospered-were instead murdered in the death camps that stretched out over Nazi occupied Europe.
While the British, together with their Arab helpers, were closing the door to those Jews attempting to escape certain death in Europe, they were more than willing to permit massive illegal Arab immigration from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa into the ancestral lands of the Jews.
A famous myth states that the various Arab tribes have long established themselves in Palestine. Then the Jews came and drove them out. This is of course patently false, as any knowledgeable historian will tell us.
History enlightens us to the fact that it was the assortment of Arab tribes who entered the region through illegal immigration, and it was they, who with violence, "displaced" the Jews. In fact, this Arab violence was used against the Jews in areas where they (the Jews) had long been established. For example, the Jewish presence in the city of Hebron goes back to Abraham, and there has been an Israelite/Jewish community there since Joshua, long before it was King David's capital.
In 1929, Arab rioters, with the passive consent of the British, killed or drove out virtually the entire Jewish population.
The world community stood by and did nothing. The U.N. itself, no friend to Israel and certainly no friend to any Jew, declared that the massive increase in Arab population was very recent; that any Arab who had lived in Palestine for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugee."
In the early 1920's, the British created the state of Trans-Jordan, which eventually seized much of Judea and Samaria (i.e., the West Bank), East Jerusalem, and the old city. They killed or drove out every Jew. And the world community stood by and did nothing.
As far as the British and the Arabs were concerned, all lands from where the Jews had been driven, making the land Judenrein (cleansed of Jews), would remain so forever.
It is interesting to note by contrast, that Israel, eventually allotted only 17 percent of Mandated Palestine, had to absorb a large and growing population of Arab citizens.
From Palestine Back to Israel-Again
By the time of the "third" Jewish nation-Israel, the Arab tribes of the region had still not yet discovered their ancient nation of Falastin. The U.N. offered them (the Arab tribes) half of Palestine in 1947-half!
And what did the Arabs do with this offer to a non-people? They violently rejected it. Soon, all too soon, six Arab nations swept down upon the only Jewish state in the region with the intent of driving every last Jew into the sea.
The Arab goal was the complete eradication of Jewry in that portion of the Middle East. And the stated goal of the Arab tribes in the area was the creation of the 22nd Arab state known as Falastin.The Arabs failed in their attempt to massacre the Jewish population of Israel.
The Arab tribes of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) even forfeited any right to a nation of their own when their brethren in Trans-Jordan invaded the West Bank and East Jerusalem, occupied these territories, and killed or drove out all the Jews who had lived there since time immemorial.
The Jews were banned for life from traveling and praying before Jewish holy places in the region. In the meantime, another Arab nation, Egypt, succeeded in taking the Gaza Strip. Both Egypt and Jordan held onto conquered lands until 1967. In that same year, the Arab nations that surrounded Israel initiated another war of genocide.
The end result, however, was much like the first - the Arabs lost again in their bid to destroy the Jewish nation, and in consequence lost lands they had taken illegally in 1948.
In the nineteen-year span from 1948-1967, Jordan and Egypt never once, not once, offered to hand over Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip to make up an independent state of Falastin. Once more, the so-called "Palestinians" never sought it. And not one nation in the entire world ever suggested it, much less demanded it.
Since the end of the First World War, the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa have been given independent states in 99.5 percent of the land they claimed. They are determined that the remaining 0.5 percent be developed into yet another Arab nation at the expense of the lone Jewish state. To that end, the Palestine Liberation Organization was set up in 1964 with the express purpose of destroying the State of Israel and driving out of the region all the Jews.
The sad truth today is that history has been thrown aside. Many nations, including the United States, have engineered media and public opinion to accept without question; without any serious analysis, the new myth of an Arab nation of Falastin whose territory is unlawfully occupied by the Jews.
Michael Bussio is a former teacher of history. He has worked for INR at the US Department of State in Washington D.C. and lived in Israel.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA - CHARISMATIC FOOL OR JUST LEFT WING LIBERAL LOONEY
Alan Note: Other than crippling our economy and lives (as does Hillary with hers) with his Economic Package and HIGH taxes, Obama appeals to our emotional sense of likeability not our common sense and we an expect a situation like the Carter administration with same incredibly high "pain levels" if he gets elected.
The major worry on Obama is his naive mindset that he can "negotiate" with Islamic terrorists like Iran's Mullahs or Prez Ahmadi-Nejad (aka the "Turd").
However, we can expect this and worse from the Billeries if they pollute the Whie House again.
By Joseph Farah
As Barack Obama continues to clean Hillary Clinton's clock in primary after primary, maybe it's time to take this guy a little more seriously.
He could be the president of the United States.
His appeal, especially when compared with "Shrillary," is understandable. He looks good. He sounds good. He seems like a nice guy.
Shrillary is anything but likable – and her voice sounds like a rusty nail scraping a blackboard. I won't comment on her looks – except to say most people are sick to death of seeing her. Period. End of story.
We knew she had high negatives, but we never realized how high they were among Democrats, too. What we know now is her appeal was 49 percent wide and a millimeter deep.
And that, quite probably, leaves us with Barack Obama – who has all the momentum on his side.
And that, quite probably, leaves us with Barack Obama – who has all the momentum on his side.
Let's remember that Barack Obama is a first-term senator. It's extremely rare in American history, especially recently, that members of the Senate or House of Representatives are elected directly to the presidency. Why? Probably because legislative experience gives us little idea about real leadership, executive ability, decisiveness, the ability to command and other qualities we look for in a president.
The last senator elected to the White House was John Kennedy. It can happen, but it's rare.
Now combine that with the fact that Obama is midway through his first term in the Senate. He is, politically speaking, a virtual unknown without any executive, management or military experience in his portfolio.
Does that disqualify him? No. But it does suggest we don't really know much about him and his ability to cope with the pressures and decisions he would have to face as president.
There is, also, the matter of his opinions on the great issues of the day. He is virtually indistinguishable in that regard from Shrillary. Yes, his style is an improvement. But, on substance, he is a political clone – albeit with darker skin and a deeper voice.
What does that tell you? It suggests he is, like Hillary, a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who, in the names of compassion, fairness, Mom and apple pie, would strip America of the freedom that has made it a shining city on a hill for 230 years.
This Che flag was in Obama's office.
That opinion was solidified with me when I heard about Obama's volunteer offices in Houston displaying a Cuban flag emblazoned with an image of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
What did Obama have to say about it?
What did Obama have to say about it?
He didn't insist it come down.
He didn't denounce it as "insensitive" or "sickening" or "an emblem of evil."
He simply dismissed it as "inappropriate."
Inappropriate?
"Inappropriate" is when somebody tells an off-color joke.
"Inappropriate" is when a campaign worker passes gas in the office.
"Inappropriate" is when a campaign worker passes gas in the office.
"Inappropriate" is when someone tells you the three people they most fear in life are Osama, Obama and Chelsea's Mama.
Displaying an image of Che Guevara as if he were some kind of Third World hero is an abomination. Check that, it's an Obama-nation.
Maybe Obama is just too young and inexperienced to know who Che really was. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt along with this refresher course.
Guevara was born in Argentina in 1928 and originally trained to become a doctor at the University of Buenos Aires. In 1952, he embarked on the trip dramatized in "The Motorcycle Diaries" across South America.
After returning to Buenos Aires to complete his medical degree, Guevara set off again to travel through the Americas.
He participated in leftist movements in Guatemala and Mexico and became acquainted with Cuban expatriates in those countries. He joined Castro's revolutionary Cuban army in 1956 as a top commander and Castro's personal physician. He helped Castro topple the regime in Havana in 1959.
As Castro's right-hand man in the new regime, Guevara ordered the execution of hundreds of people while in charge of the notorious La Caba, a prison in Havana. He was unapologetic about the mass killings of innocent people, explaining, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary.
These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
Pure hate. It wasn't the first time Guevara used the expression, nor the last. He explained how it must be a tool in the arsenal of revolutionary terrorists – permitting them to do things they would otherwise never be able to accomplish.
"Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine – this is what our soldiers must become," Guevara said.
During the Cuban missile crisis, Guevara was in favor of a nuclear war with the U.S. because he believed that a better world could be built from the ashes, regardless of the cost in millions of lives. He was overruled by cooler heads in the Kremlin and in Cuba. The nuclear missiles headed for Cuba, 90 miles from the U.S., were returned to Russia.
Disgraced by the slight, Guevara went to create new revolutionary movements and wage armed struggle in Africa and Latin America. He was killed in the jungles of Bolivia in 1967.
Guevara was proud of the fact that he personally put bullets in the backs of the heads of many he considered counter-revolutionary.
Once again, in rallying his guerrillas in Angola, he wrote: "Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier into an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."
Would you say displaying this man's picture is "inappropriate"?
I'd say that's the biggest understatement since Gen. George Custer said: "Over that hill, I think they're friendly Indians."
Like I said, maybe Obama just doesn't know what a monster Che was. But then, again, if he doesn't, he probably shouldn't be running for president of the United States.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
REAGAN'S LAST WORDS
Reagan's Last Words
I don't know whether or not you watched the memorial service for Ronald Reagan , but if you did, you probably noticed that Bill and Hillary were both dozing off.
President Ronald Reagan, who never missed a chance for a good one-liner, raised his head out of his casket and said... 'I see the Clintons are finally sleeping together.'
Friday, February 8, 2008
SERBIA - DID EUROPE DODGE A WAR?
By Austin Bay
On Super Sunday, Europe dodged a shooting war ... but just barely.
Thank Serbia's electorate — at least 50.5 percent of them — as Serbia's current president, Boris Tadic, narrowly defeated "ultra-nationalist" Tomislav Nikolic. Mr. Tadic opposes renewed warfare and supports Serbia's economic and political integration with Western and Central Europe.
Mr. Nikolic looks east — to Russia. He doesn't shy from violent threats, either. "Ultra-nationalist" in the context of contemporary Eastern Europe and Central Asia is something of a euphemism for "21st century fascist." That's a freighted description, but Mr. Nikolic's "irredentist" land claims, insistent political exploitation of historical grievances and a violent brand of ethnic identity politics justifies it.
History does not repeat itself, not exactly. In 1933, a fascist didn't have nuclear weapons. Not that Mr. Nikolic does, either — but the day before the election he promised if elected to ask the Russian Air Force to patrol Serbian air space. Mr. Nikolic added that he stood "for military cooperation with Russia" and stressed opposition to a "NATO presence in Serbia in any form."
NATO peacekeepers still patrol Kosovo. Mr. Nikolic was telling Serbian voters he would toss NATO out of Kosovo — and remove the force that prevents renewed combat and ethnic cleansing.
Perhaps most Americans have forgotten the 1999 Kosovo War, the Clinton administration's war to stop a Serb-led genocide in Kosovo. Serbians haven't, Albanians haven't, nor has Vladimir Putin's newly muscular Kremlin. Perhaps Americans thought that "little" Balkan war was over and done. Serbs don't think so, Albanians don't, nor does the Kremlin.
The "Kosovo problem" was the primary election issue in Serbia. That made the election a major battle in that still simmering Balkan war. Fortunately, Serbs waged Sunday's battle with ballots instead of bombs. Unfortunately, with men like Mr. Nikolic getting 49 percent of the vote, bombs (whether delivered by unconventional ethnic and religious terrorists, or conventional strike aircraft) remain a terrifying possibility.
In the Balkans, "little" events have a track record for igniting large-scale slaughter — with World War I as a bitter example.
The Kosovo conundrum is an ugly clash with no gentle resolution. For the last nine years, the Kosovo tug of war between Belgrade and Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority has challenged diplomatic creativity.
European Union and United Nations diplomats have explored several options, including a vague policy called "conditional independence," but ultimately either Kosovo becomes independent or in some way remains politically tethered to Serbia.
Kosovar Albanians demand independence. They claim they cannot be secure in any state dominated by Serbs.
Serbs demand Kosovo remain part of Serbia. Kosovo was the core of Serbia's medieval empire and is particularly dear to the Serbs. In 1389, Turkish Sultan Murad I's legions defeated Christian forces under Serbian Prince Lazar at the Battle of Kosovo. (Yes, in the Balkans, nations venerate defeats — not an optimistic sign.)
For the United States, NATO and the European Union, however, Russian intransigence, energy supplies and nuclear weapons are the most vexing issues framed by the Kosovo problem. The Kremlin, concerned about Chechnya, fears that Kosovo's "unilateral" independence will establish a "separatist precedent" for carving states from sovereign nations.
As the 21st century begins, Balkan and Eastern European nations are looking for new political accommodations — and these include joining NATO or the EU. The idea is that "internationalization" and an "expanded political identity" dampen ethnic and nationalist passions and thus reduce the chance of conflict.
The EU is supposed to do this for Western and Central Europe (keep France and Germany from destroying each other). NATO and Partnership for Peace (PFP, also called "NATO Lite") are security organizations, but at the political level they serve the same purpose. For example, Hungarian and Romanian membership in NATO has greatly reduced the potential for conflict over Transylvania, a Romanian region with an ethnic Hungarian majority.
This indirectly takes us back to Serbia. President Tadic received a solid majority of ethnic minority votes in Serbia, especially among ethnic Hungarians living in Serbia's Vojvodina region. Serbia's Hungarians see the benefit of the "expanded political identity" of the European Union.
Pray that Mr. Tadic can nudge Mr. Nikolic's 49 percent in that "westerly" direction.
On Super Sunday, Europe dodged a shooting war ... but just barely.
Thank Serbia's electorate — at least 50.5 percent of them — as Serbia's current president, Boris Tadic, narrowly defeated "ultra-nationalist" Tomislav Nikolic. Mr. Tadic opposes renewed warfare and supports Serbia's economic and political integration with Western and Central Europe.
Mr. Nikolic looks east — to Russia. He doesn't shy from violent threats, either. "Ultra-nationalist" in the context of contemporary Eastern Europe and Central Asia is something of a euphemism for "21st century fascist." That's a freighted description, but Mr. Nikolic's "irredentist" land claims, insistent political exploitation of historical grievances and a violent brand of ethnic identity politics justifies it.
History does not repeat itself, not exactly. In 1933, a fascist didn't have nuclear weapons. Not that Mr. Nikolic does, either — but the day before the election he promised if elected to ask the Russian Air Force to patrol Serbian air space. Mr. Nikolic added that he stood "for military cooperation with Russia" and stressed opposition to a "NATO presence in Serbia in any form."
NATO peacekeepers still patrol Kosovo. Mr. Nikolic was telling Serbian voters he would toss NATO out of Kosovo — and remove the force that prevents renewed combat and ethnic cleansing.
Perhaps most Americans have forgotten the 1999 Kosovo War, the Clinton administration's war to stop a Serb-led genocide in Kosovo. Serbians haven't, Albanians haven't, nor has Vladimir Putin's newly muscular Kremlin. Perhaps Americans thought that "little" Balkan war was over and done. Serbs don't think so, Albanians don't, nor does the Kremlin.
The "Kosovo problem" was the primary election issue in Serbia. That made the election a major battle in that still simmering Balkan war. Fortunately, Serbs waged Sunday's battle with ballots instead of bombs. Unfortunately, with men like Mr. Nikolic getting 49 percent of the vote, bombs (whether delivered by unconventional ethnic and religious terrorists, or conventional strike aircraft) remain a terrifying possibility.
In the Balkans, "little" events have a track record for igniting large-scale slaughter — with World War I as a bitter example.
The Kosovo conundrum is an ugly clash with no gentle resolution. For the last nine years, the Kosovo tug of war between Belgrade and Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority has challenged diplomatic creativity.
European Union and United Nations diplomats have explored several options, including a vague policy called "conditional independence," but ultimately either Kosovo becomes independent or in some way remains politically tethered to Serbia.
Kosovar Albanians demand independence. They claim they cannot be secure in any state dominated by Serbs.
Serbs demand Kosovo remain part of Serbia. Kosovo was the core of Serbia's medieval empire and is particularly dear to the Serbs. In 1389, Turkish Sultan Murad I's legions defeated Christian forces under Serbian Prince Lazar at the Battle of Kosovo. (Yes, in the Balkans, nations venerate defeats — not an optimistic sign.)
For the United States, NATO and the European Union, however, Russian intransigence, energy supplies and nuclear weapons are the most vexing issues framed by the Kosovo problem. The Kremlin, concerned about Chechnya, fears that Kosovo's "unilateral" independence will establish a "separatist precedent" for carving states from sovereign nations.
As the 21st century begins, Balkan and Eastern European nations are looking for new political accommodations — and these include joining NATO or the EU. The idea is that "internationalization" and an "expanded political identity" dampen ethnic and nationalist passions and thus reduce the chance of conflict.
The EU is supposed to do this for Western and Central Europe (keep France and Germany from destroying each other). NATO and Partnership for Peace (PFP, also called "NATO Lite") are security organizations, but at the political level they serve the same purpose. For example, Hungarian and Romanian membership in NATO has greatly reduced the potential for conflict over Transylvania, a Romanian region with an ethnic Hungarian majority.
This indirectly takes us back to Serbia. President Tadic received a solid majority of ethnic minority votes in Serbia, especially among ethnic Hungarians living in Serbia's Vojvodina region. Serbia's Hungarians see the benefit of the "expanded political identity" of the European Union.
Pray that Mr. Tadic can nudge Mr. Nikolic's 49 percent in that "westerly" direction.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
ANOTHER EMERGING MOSLEM THREAT TO THE WEST AND THE USA
AMERICA WAKE UP! EUROPE WAKE UP! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
By JAMES GEORGE JATRAS UPI Outside View CommentatorWASHINGTON, Feb. 5 (UPI) --
During its final year in office, the Bush administration has a full plate on the foreign front: intractable war in Iraq, Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, concerns about Iran's nuclear program, nuclear uncertainty in North Korea, increasingly unstable nuclear-armed Pakistan, and hopes for an ever-elusive settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
With all that to juggle, one might think Washington would hesitate to trigger a blowup on a seemingly unimportant matter that could transform into a full-blown global crisis. Yet that is exactly what the administration intends to do with respect to the Serbian province of Kosovo.Since the 1999 NATO war against what was then Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Kosovo has been under U.N. administration.
The province remains legally part of Serbia as Albanian Muslims escalate their demands to create an independent country.
Despite pious assurances of protection, the remaining Christian Serbs know that Kosovo's independence would mean curtains for them. With a quarter of a million Serbs (and other non-Albanians: Roma (Gypsies), Croats, Gorani, all the Jews) terrorized from the province during the past nine years of "peacetime" when the rest of the world had turned it eyes elsewhere, the Serbs' fears are well-founded. Since 1999, some 150 Christian shrines have been destroyed or desecrated.
At the same time, hundreds of mosques have been built, mainly with Saudi money and propagating the intolerant Wahhabi brand of Islam. The effective authority in the Albanian Muslim community is an organized crime network trafficking in drugs, women and weapons.
The legitimate economy is virtually nonexistent. Independent or not, it's hard to see how Kosovo ceases to be an economic basket case and black hole of terror, crime and corruption, despite billions of aid dollars and euros dumped into the place.In short, Kosovo is a mess, and it's not obvious how or when that can be changed.
Left alone, it might remain one of the worlds simmering sore spots, like Kashmir or Cyprus, until the parties manage to come to some agreement -- or don't.
However, for reasons that are hard to understand, the Bush administration -- joined, oddly enough, by Hillary Clinton -- demands that immediate independence for Kosovo's Albanians is the only possible solution.
The fact that democratic Serbia refuses to concede amputation of 15 percent of its territory, and has offered the Albanians the fullest autonomy enjoyed by any minority group anywhere in the world, is ignored.
Likewise dismissed is the fact that the relevant U.N. Security Council Resolution affirms Serbia's sovereignty, which Russia insists must be respected.If, as now planned, Kosovo's Albanians declare independence after a green light from Washington, a bad situation would get much worse.
Violence would flare as Muslim Albanians step up their attacks on Christian Serbs. Belgrade would be forced to consider how to respond as its citizens are targeted under the eyes of an illegal occupying force. Moscow, livid at the prospect of an end-run of the Security Council, has said it stands ready to aid Serbia if asked.
Countries around the world would be forced to take sides on whether to recognize Kosovo's independence. Most probably would not, as separatist groups in dozens of countries cite Kosovo as reason to demand carving out their own states.
Washington might find itself isolated, along with a few countries that had followed our lead.Setting all this in motion might be justified if there were some obvious U.S. benefit. But the opposite is the case. Why should we provoke a needless fight with a newly muscular Russia? Especially after Sept. 11, why should America want to be midwife to the birth of a new Islamic country in Europe?
Already having experienced "blowback" in the form of the jihad terror plot against Fort Dix, N.J., where four of the six indictees are Albanian Muslims from the Kosovo region, why give the Albanian mafia a consolidated base from which to extend its operations?
The United States has no interest in creating an independent Kosovo, even if it were easy to achieve. The fact that trying to separate Kosovo from Serbia would be anything but easy would just add one more headache to our list. If the Bush administration has any sense, it will leave Kosovo to the next president, whoever that might be.
By JAMES GEORGE JATRAS UPI Outside View CommentatorWASHINGTON, Feb. 5 (UPI) --
During its final year in office, the Bush administration has a full plate on the foreign front: intractable war in Iraq, Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, concerns about Iran's nuclear program, nuclear uncertainty in North Korea, increasingly unstable nuclear-armed Pakistan, and hopes for an ever-elusive settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
With all that to juggle, one might think Washington would hesitate to trigger a blowup on a seemingly unimportant matter that could transform into a full-blown global crisis. Yet that is exactly what the administration intends to do with respect to the Serbian province of Kosovo.Since the 1999 NATO war against what was then Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Kosovo has been under U.N. administration.
The province remains legally part of Serbia as Albanian Muslims escalate their demands to create an independent country.
Despite pious assurances of protection, the remaining Christian Serbs know that Kosovo's independence would mean curtains for them. With a quarter of a million Serbs (and other non-Albanians: Roma (Gypsies), Croats, Gorani, all the Jews) terrorized from the province during the past nine years of "peacetime" when the rest of the world had turned it eyes elsewhere, the Serbs' fears are well-founded. Since 1999, some 150 Christian shrines have been destroyed or desecrated.
At the same time, hundreds of mosques have been built, mainly with Saudi money and propagating the intolerant Wahhabi brand of Islam. The effective authority in the Albanian Muslim community is an organized crime network trafficking in drugs, women and weapons.
The legitimate economy is virtually nonexistent. Independent or not, it's hard to see how Kosovo ceases to be an economic basket case and black hole of terror, crime and corruption, despite billions of aid dollars and euros dumped into the place.In short, Kosovo is a mess, and it's not obvious how or when that can be changed.
Left alone, it might remain one of the worlds simmering sore spots, like Kashmir or Cyprus, until the parties manage to come to some agreement -- or don't.
However, for reasons that are hard to understand, the Bush administration -- joined, oddly enough, by Hillary Clinton -- demands that immediate independence for Kosovo's Albanians is the only possible solution.
The fact that democratic Serbia refuses to concede amputation of 15 percent of its territory, and has offered the Albanians the fullest autonomy enjoyed by any minority group anywhere in the world, is ignored.
Likewise dismissed is the fact that the relevant U.N. Security Council Resolution affirms Serbia's sovereignty, which Russia insists must be respected.If, as now planned, Kosovo's Albanians declare independence after a green light from Washington, a bad situation would get much worse.
Violence would flare as Muslim Albanians step up their attacks on Christian Serbs. Belgrade would be forced to consider how to respond as its citizens are targeted under the eyes of an illegal occupying force. Moscow, livid at the prospect of an end-run of the Security Council, has said it stands ready to aid Serbia if asked.
Countries around the world would be forced to take sides on whether to recognize Kosovo's independence. Most probably would not, as separatist groups in dozens of countries cite Kosovo as reason to demand carving out their own states.
Washington might find itself isolated, along with a few countries that had followed our lead.Setting all this in motion might be justified if there were some obvious U.S. benefit. But the opposite is the case. Why should we provoke a needless fight with a newly muscular Russia? Especially after Sept. 11, why should America want to be midwife to the birth of a new Islamic country in Europe?
Already having experienced "blowback" in the form of the jihad terror plot against Fort Dix, N.J., where four of the six indictees are Albanian Muslims from the Kosovo region, why give the Albanian mafia a consolidated base from which to extend its operations?
The United States has no interest in creating an independent Kosovo, even if it were easy to achieve. The fact that trying to separate Kosovo from Serbia would be anything but easy would just add one more headache to our list. If the Bush administration has any sense, it will leave Kosovo to the next president, whoever that might be.
Monday, February 4, 2008
MORE "CANCER" INSIDE OUR SECURITY
John England, Deputy Secretary of Defence at the Pentagon is clueless enough to be totally influenced by two of his Moslem employees, fire a non-Moslem EXPERT at their behest and ENDANGERS the security of our country.
He should be fired or made to resign!
Hillary Clinton's closest and trusted (perhaps loved) companion Huma Abedin has deep family roots to Al Qaeda and wold enter the White House again!
Now this on the International front. Could well be a very worthy person but not reach a security clearance level needed for this post.
New NATO intelligence chief was trained by KGB
By Judy Dempsey Published: February 3, 2008
BERLIN: The new chief of the Hungarian secret services, who spent six years at the KGB's academy in Moscow during the 1980s, has become chairman of NATO's intelligence committee, a development that diplomats said could compromise the security of the alliance.
Sandor Laborc, 49, was personally chosen by Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany of Hungary as director of the country's counterintelligence National Security Office in December, after a bitter dispute between the governing coalition led by the Socialists - the former Communists - and the main opposition party, Fidesz.
Laborc, a former Communist who was trained at the KGB's Dzerzhinsky Academy from 1983 to 1989, according to members of the national security committee in the Hungarian Parliament, had failed to win support from that committee, which oversees such appointments.
Despite that, Gyurcsany and Gyorgy Szilvasy, the minister responsible for the intelligence services, pushed through the appointment.
"A decision by the National Security Committee has no binding effect," Gyurcsany's office said in a statement issued in response to several written questions about Laborc from the International Herald Tribune.
"Gyorgy Szilvasy had the right to make a decision in his own capacity and advise the prime minister. He justified the recommendation by introducing General Laborc as someone with unquestioned professional credentials."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
He should be fired or made to resign!
Hillary Clinton's closest and trusted (perhaps loved) companion Huma Abedin has deep family roots to Al Qaeda and wold enter the White House again!
Now this on the International front. Could well be a very worthy person but not reach a security clearance level needed for this post.
New NATO intelligence chief was trained by KGB
By Judy Dempsey Published: February 3, 2008
BERLIN: The new chief of the Hungarian secret services, who spent six years at the KGB's academy in Moscow during the 1980s, has become chairman of NATO's intelligence committee, a development that diplomats said could compromise the security of the alliance.
Sandor Laborc, 49, was personally chosen by Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany of Hungary as director of the country's counterintelligence National Security Office in December, after a bitter dispute between the governing coalition led by the Socialists - the former Communists - and the main opposition party, Fidesz.
Laborc, a former Communist who was trained at the KGB's Dzerzhinsky Academy from 1983 to 1989, according to members of the national security committee in the Hungarian Parliament, had failed to win support from that committee, which oversees such appointments.
Despite that, Gyurcsany and Gyorgy Szilvasy, the minister responsible for the intelligence services, pushed through the appointment.
"A decision by the National Security Committee has no binding effect," Gyurcsany's office said in a statement issued in response to several written questions about Laborc from the International Herald Tribune.
"Gyorgy Szilvasy had the right to make a decision in his own capacity and advise the prime minister. He justified the recommendation by introducing General Laborc as someone with unquestioned professional credentials."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Sunday, February 3, 2008
NAVY'S NEW TECHNOLOGY WEAPON
The US Navy's electromagnetic railgun project notched up a successful test yesterday. The radical new protoype weapon, operated by the the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren, fired* shot a hypersonic aluminium slug at approximately Mach 7.5 to generate muzzle energy of 10.6 megajoules.
The US navy is interested in the kit for a number of reasons. For one, its next generation warships are expected to use electric drive systems, meaning that they will be have 80 megawatts or more on hand. If this power can be used to put violence onto the enemy as well as driving the ship, that's good news for logistics and supply. The only ammo you need is solid shot with guidance fins; there's no need for tons of high-explosive warheads and low-explosive chemical propellants for regular shells and missiles. These are replaced by nice simple fuel for the ship's engines.
The lack of exploding warheads could offer a chance to deliver more surgical strikes, too. They could take out a single vehicle from far out at sea, perhaps, rather than pulverising a whole area like present-day cruise missiles. This kind of thing is very trendy nowadays in military circles, though the problem of getting the right vehicle remains a tricky one.
Furthermore, even the ritziest missiles struggle to get above Mach 3-4, especially over any distance; thus the railgun slugs would be quicker to arrive when bombarding shore targets. They might also be good for shooting down fast-moving flying things.
Indeed, if the cannon could aim quickly enough and the hyper-bullets could steer well enough in flight, lighter-calibre weapons might tip the balance of naval warfare back in favour of surface craft. Ever since the Battle of Midway, sailors have reluctantly been forced to accept that aircraft win sea battles, not ships. But railguns might demote aircraft carriers from their current big-dog naval status and bring in electric dreadnoughts as the capital ships of tomorrow, able to sweep the skies of pesky aircraft or missiles as soon as they dared show themselves above the horizon.
It's easy to see why navies like the idea of electric hypercannons, then. But there are a lot of problems to be overcome. For one, the gun barrel tends to come apart after just a few shots. For another, packing a steady hundred-megawatt supply down into ultra-brief 64 megajoule pulses isn't simple.
The US navy is interested in the kit for a number of reasons. For one, its next generation warships are expected to use electric drive systems, meaning that they will be have 80 megawatts or more on hand. If this power can be used to put violence onto the enemy as well as driving the ship, that's good news for logistics and supply. The only ammo you need is solid shot with guidance fins; there's no need for tons of high-explosive warheads and low-explosive chemical propellants for regular shells and missiles. These are replaced by nice simple fuel for the ship's engines.
The lack of exploding warheads could offer a chance to deliver more surgical strikes, too. They could take out a single vehicle from far out at sea, perhaps, rather than pulverising a whole area like present-day cruise missiles. This kind of thing is very trendy nowadays in military circles, though the problem of getting the right vehicle remains a tricky one.
Furthermore, even the ritziest missiles struggle to get above Mach 3-4, especially over any distance; thus the railgun slugs would be quicker to arrive when bombarding shore targets. They might also be good for shooting down fast-moving flying things.
Indeed, if the cannon could aim quickly enough and the hyper-bullets could steer well enough in flight, lighter-calibre weapons might tip the balance of naval warfare back in favour of surface craft. Ever since the Battle of Midway, sailors have reluctantly been forced to accept that aircraft win sea battles, not ships. But railguns might demote aircraft carriers from their current big-dog naval status and bring in electric dreadnoughts as the capital ships of tomorrow, able to sweep the skies of pesky aircraft or missiles as soon as they dared show themselves above the horizon.
It's easy to see why navies like the idea of electric hypercannons, then. But there are a lot of problems to be overcome. For one, the gun barrel tends to come apart after just a few shots. For another, packing a steady hundred-megawatt supply down into ultra-brief 64 megajoule pulses isn't simple.
Friday, February 1, 2008
SHARIA BEING INJECTED INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU? SURE?
THOUGH THE INFILTRATION OF SEVERE, RESTRICTIVE, 7TH CENTURY (!) SHARIA LAWS INTO THE WEST HAS MADE GREATER PROGRESS IN CANADA AND PARTS OF EUROPE, THE PIECES ARE IN PLACE IN THE USA TO FORCE AMERICANS TO ADAPT TO ISLAMIC BEHAVIOR.
GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations human rights body called on Saudi Arabia on Friday to immediately end its system of male guardianship which it said severely limits the basic freedoms of women in the kingdom.
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, in its first scrutiny of Saudi Arabia's gender equality record, said Islamic Sharia law should not trump an international women's rights treaty that Riyadh signed in 2000.
The committee's 23 independent experts urged Saudi Arabia to "amend its legislation to confirm that international treaties have precedence over domestic laws," and "enact a comprehensive gender equality law."
They also said that Riyadh should "take immediate steps to end the practice of male guardianship over women" and work to eliminate "negative cultural practices and stereotypes" which discriminate against women.
Saudi Arabia's system of male guardianship severely curtails the rights afforded in the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the committee said.
The rules restrict women's legal rights in marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, property ownership and decision-making in the family, as well as choice of residency, education and jobs, the committee said.
It "contributes to the prevalence of a patriarchal ideology with stereotypes and the persistence of deep-rooted cultural norms, customs and traditions that discriminate against women," the committee said. A de facto ban on Saudi women driving further reinforces such stereotypes, the U.N. body concluded.
Although the body has no legal power to enforce its recommendations, it is regarded as a moral authority on women's rights.
SAUDIS SAY NO DISCRIMINATION !!!!!!!!!!!
A report submitted by Riyadh on its compliance with the treaty said that generally there was "no discrimination against women in the laws of the kingdom."
A Saudi delegation led by Zeid Bin Abdul Mushin Al Hussein, vice president of the Saudi Human Rights Commission, told the committee during a recent debate: "Human rights in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia are based on Sharia law."
Saudi clerics, who rule according to the strict religious tenets, have wide powers in Saudi Arabia under a traditional pact with the royal family.
The country drew international criticism after its Supreme Judicial Council ordered a 19-year-old to 200 lashes and six months in jail for having been with a man she was not related to when she was attacked and raped by seven other men in 2006.
SHE WAS CONDEMNED TO HUNDREDS MORE LASHES FOR TALKING TO THE PRESS ABOUT IT.
King Abdullah finally pardoned the gang-rape victim in December.
The U.N. committee urged Riyadh to withdraw its proviso that Islamic law take precedence over the women's rights treaty, particularly as Saudi authorities have given assurances that there is "no contradiction in substance" between the two.
The committee's conclusions were issued at the end of a three-week meeting during which it also reviewed other states.
IRAN IS ALMOST AS BAD, Pakistan and Afghan Taliban are as bad or worse but why waste breath on them and their deaf ears to any form of human rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
