Would you like to hear some quotes from Al Qaeda like American conservatives?
...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Disapproval on Iraq Hits Record
Quote:By GARY LANGER, ABC News Polling Director
Feb. 26, 2007 — - A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, even if civil order has not been restored there -- potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.
...
In a fundamental change, 56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq. That represents a continued, gradual departure from the "you break it, you've bought it" sentiment that until now has mitigated in favor of continued U.S. involvement until some stability is attained.
...
26 March 2007
Behind enemy lines with the Taliban of Helmand
In this exclusive report for the 'IoS', three members of the Taliban waging war on British troops in Afghanistan tell Chris Sands why they feel they have no choice but to take up arms against the 'foreign invaders'
When Zahir Jan set out on the journey from his home in Helmand to the neighbouring province of Kandahar, he knew there was a good chance he might not finish it.
"It's not easy being in the Taliban these days," he said. "At every checkpoint on the way here the police and army asked us for bribes. They said if we didn't pay them they would hand us over to the foreigners."
The 20-year-old had just travelled through an area Tony Blair describes as the key to world security. It was guarded by men who routinely blackmail anyone they don't like the look of.
Zahir was an obvious target because he is one of the many Afghans who have chosen to fight against the British and their allies in the local government.
Peace only exists for him back in the district of Garmser. The Taliban rule the region around his home there and, if he is to be believed, they will control many more places before the summer is out.
"We are very strong. We have lots of soldiers and very modern guns," Zahir said. "Let me tell you, in all of Helmand there are maybe 100 people working with the government. The rest of the men are with the Taliban. I can assure you that in every house five men are now with the Taliban. There are not any Sindhis, Punjabis, Arabs or Chechens with us. We are all local people, and we are very strong.
"Everyone has picked up a gun. What else can we do? We cannot bear it any more. When the foreigners first came we thought maybe they wanted to build the country, but what have they done in the last five years? They have done nothing so we have to stand against them. They have killed innocent people, occupied the country and now jihad is demanded of us."
Zahir met The Independent on Sunday with two other Talibs from Helmand. A third party closely linked to the militants arranged the interview, which took place at a secure location inside Kandahar city one morning earlier this month.
The insurgents' description of life in their home province was far removed from the version Downing Street and Nato officials are keen to promote. As far as these men are concerned, any soldier with a white face is a "foreigner". There are no differences between the various countries that make up the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).
They spoke of villagers too scared to switch on their lights at night in case their homes are bombed in air strikes; troops deliberately shooting civilians; and members of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance using their new roles in the Afghan army to persecute the Pashtun population.
"We have to fight because even if we don't we will be killed," Zahir said. "We have the Koran and, praise be to God, we are Muslims, so we have to defend ourselves, our women and our country."
Helmand is the Taliban's stronghold and one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan. The former head of Isaf, Lieutenant General David Richards, described fighting in the province last summer as the worst British troops had faced since the Korean War.
"If you go there in a helicopter you will see the houses are just mountains of rubble as high as this," Zahir said, gesturing to a large wall behind him. "Lots of people are lying dead under their homes because no one feels safe enough to get them out."
Dressed in a shalwar kameez and green combat jacket, he was by far the most talkative of the group. For him, there is no doubt what is happening to hearts and minds.
"The foreigners just sit in the desert and open fire from there. As soon as they get reports of Taliban they open fire, without checking. When they occupy an area they kill all the women and children. They do not even spare the animals, they kill them as well," he said.
A recent survey by the Senlis Council think-tank found 80 per cent of men in Helmand and Kandahar believe the international troops are not helping them personally, while 71 per cent believe the Afghan government is also unhelpful.
According to Zahir, support for President Hamid Karzai's administration will only fall if he cannot stem the flow of civilian deaths caused by Nato-led forces.
"He is just using the name of Islam, but he is not a Muslim in his heart. If someone beats me, another Muslim will feel pain. But here people are killed every day and he doesn't react," he said.
With him was Ghafar, a softly spoken man wearing the kind of jet-black turban traditionally sported by the Taliban.
The 31-year-old told The Independent on Sunday his cousin is being detained at Bagram Air Base, north of the Afghan capital, Kabul. He defended the insurgency as a natural reaction to attacks on local culture, including the government's intermittent attempts to reduce opium production.
"My house has been searched three or four times and, more importantly, my poppies were destroyed last year. That was my life, it was the only way I could earn an income," he said.
"Now the only way I can feed my family is with a gun. The Taliban themselves don't pay salaries, but there are some good Muslims in the community who support us."
It is too dangerous for Western reporters to visit Helmand unembedded, as the three men admitted. They claimed that the Taliban recently executed 10 foreigners caught spying there.
But elsewhere across southern Afghanistan it is the local government forces and Nato who often inspire most fear among the population.
In Kandahar people usually associate the former Taliban regime with security, while blaming the international troops for causing widespread civilian casualties in bombing raids and firefights. Even women long for the pre-invasion days, when they could at least walk the streets without the threat of being killed at any moment.
Ghulam is 60 or 70 years old - he's not sure exactly. He is from Lashkar Gah, Helmand, and, like the other two Talibs, he describes the situation in the province as unbearable.
"The worst time I have experienced in my life is now," he said. "It's worse than when the Russians were here. The Russians treated us well, they never went into our houses. Now the foreigners go into houses, disturb the women and kill innocent people.
"Do you see my white beard? Do you see I have no teeth left? Still, even I am fighting against them."
Karlin: Is the Middle East intervention -- Iraq, and the desire to nuke Iran -- is this empire building in the guise of fighting terrorism?
Johnson: Yes.
Karlin: If there weren't terrorists, Bush and Cheney would have had to invent them?
Johnson: Absolutely. There's just no doubt about it. In fact, we have to say that in any historical perspective, that the response of Bush-Cheney to 9/11 was a catastrophe of misjudgment and almost surely based on interests entirely separate from the terrorist attacks. We enhanced Osama bin Laden's power by declaring war on terrorism, escalating his position. The world's balance of power didn't change one iota on September 11th, 2001. The only way we could lose the power and influence we had at that time was through our own actions, and that's what we did.
Instead of calling it a war on terrorism, we should have called it a national emergency. We should have gone after the terrorists as criminals, as organized crime, because of their attacks on innocent civilians. Tracked them down -- we have the capacity to do that -- arrested them, extradited them back to the United States, tried them in our courts, and executed them. Had we done that, we would have retained the support of virtually the entire rest of the world, including the Islamic world, as the victims on 9/11.
But we did the opposite. We simply went crazy, and we also refused to acknowledge that the retaliation that came on 9/11 was blow-back. We were partly responsible for what happened, since the people who attacked us were our former allies in the largest single clandestine operation we ever carried out, including Armenians sending into battle of the Mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan. Certainly, Osama bin Laden was not unfamiliar to our Central Intelligence Agency. They had been working with him for quite a long time.
It's in that sense that I think it was a catastrophic error. But the truth is, in retrospect, it doesn't look like an error at all. They saw it as an opportunity -- as a golden opportunity to carry out these sort of mad and speculative schemes that they had been working on throughout the 1990s, dreaming that we were this new Rome that could do anything it wants to.
revel wrote:Disapproval on Iraq Hits Record
Quote:By GARY LANGER, ABC News Polling Director
Feb. 26, 2007 — - A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, even if civil order has not been restored there -- potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.
...
In a fundamental change, 56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq. That represents a continued, gradual departure from the "you break it, you've bought it" sentiment that until now has mitigated in favor of continued U.S. involvement until some stability is attained.
...
"56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq."
Finally we get to the crux of the matter. That 56% is a clear majority, but what does this majority mean by "at some point"? I guess they mean: by the end of Bush's presidency! In other words, leave by the end of Bush's presidency, no matter what! Is that what that 56% means?
revel wrote:Disapproval on Iraq Hits Record
Quote:By GARY LANGER, ABC News Polling Director
Feb. 26, 2007 — - A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, even if civil order has not been restored there -- potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.
...
In a fundamental change, 56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq. That represents a continued, gradual departure from the "you break it, you've bought it" sentiment that until now has mitigated in favor of continued U.S. involvement until some stability is attained.
...
"56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq."
Finally we get to the crux of the matter. That 56% is a clear majority, but what does this majority mean by "at some point"? I guess they mean: by the end of Bush's presidency! In other words, leave by the end of Bush's presidency, no matter what! Is that what that 56% means?
ican711nm wrote:
...
Finally we get to the crux of the matter. That 56% is a clear majority, but what does this majority mean by "at some point"? I guess they mean: by the end of Bush's presidency! In other words, leave by the end of Bush's presidency, no matter what! Is that what that 56% means?
Um, before then if possible. Far before then.
I'm glad you finally got the answer you were looking for, Ican. I'm also glad that it falls right in line with other polling questions which were worded similarly.
Are you beginnning to process inside what you're going to have to go through, when the pullout happens? Have you begun to blame the correct people for failing to convince the US populace that this course of action was worth any cost and indefinite deployment? Because you're talking about the responsibility of the WH to convince people of this. Any other way to look at it robs them of their duty and authority.
Cycloptichorn
Congress's Joint Resolution September 14, 2001
emphasis added
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
...
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ON POSTWAR FINDINGS ABOUT IRAQ'S WMD PROGRAMS AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND HOW THEY COMPARE WITH PREWAR ASSESSMENTS together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS;
...
[computer page 112 of 151 pages -- report page 109],
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghadha had not controlled since 1991.
American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."
page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all. "
UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
so the monthly deathtoll from jan/feb 2006 to jan/feb 2007 has now doubled - if that isn't progress , i don't know what is .
if this progress continues there will be no enemies left in iraq - unfortunately , there may be no iraqis left at all - but let's not get too picky .
hbg
"It ain't over 'til it's over."
You got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.
Fifteen British sailors and marines have been taken prisoner by the Iranian National Guard and are at a secret location in Iran, being interviewed.
Should they be treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention, or under Guantanamo Bay rules?
