Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

War against terror

Recommended Posts

Of course there will be the masses who will eat up this story but the bullshit that comes out of is so self evident,it screams so loud it hurts your ears.

If Saddam Hussein would have ordered such attacks it would have ment we would have been prepared for a direct war with USA and it`s allies,whilist he never wanted war,NYTimes has a very intresting articles about captured documents  from Baath with their plans,and it clearly states that even in the last hour they were hoping for the war to be avoided,massing troops in cities to stop rebellions.

Maybe prestige in front of the Arab World?Please,2/3 of arab countries were already soldout,no one would have helped him in such a suicidal vendeta.

Yet you have to wonder why didn`t USA use such a valuable information in their shaky case for war.

So darn easy to cough up sensationalist statements but when it comes to prooving them,they all act like a limping baby dodging questions with something totally irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting conspiracy theory, found on military.com

---------------

The Clash of Civilizations and the Great Caliphate

by Larry Abraham 29 January, 2004

I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives. This information is too critical to be overlooked in the madness of this election year.

Watching and listening to the Democrat Party candidates is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and on and nothing of value comes out, except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won’t take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many mind numbing times, but what you have not heard is crucial.

President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling the American people what they really need to know about this war. If they don’t do that between now and November, it could cost them the election.

The war against terrorism did not begin on September 11, 2001 nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one nonetheless.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the “Third Great Jihadâ€. They are operating within the framework of a timeline which reaches back to the very creation if Islam in the seventh century, and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of it’s existence.

No religion in history grew as fast in it’s infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Mohammed’s death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins, and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of it’s early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large, as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state, along with the tithes coerced by the Church.

What Islam offered was the “Carrot or the Swordâ€. If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn’t, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God – Allah – and Mohammed is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called “children of the book†– the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the “wordâ€, Islam grew like wildfire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the “First Great Jihadâ€, and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France – the Father of Charlemagne – stopped them in the battle of Tours, in France, after they had firmly established Islam in the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times, until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Grenada.

The “Second Great Jihad†came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to the Roman hegemony in all it’s forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam’s most successful expansion of territory, even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in “the ways of the Prophetâ€. By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming it’s internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding its adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the *****es.

Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection, or distruction, of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds it’s most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghan Taliban or the *****e practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. It’s Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the “Third Jihadâ€, who is Wahhabi as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this “holy war†did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran, back in the late 1970’s. With his plans and programs to “westernize†his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the state of Israel, the Shah was a soft target. Remember “America Held Hostage�

Thanks in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set in motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support it’s grand design, or what they call, “The Great Caliphate.â€

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia and finally what they call “the occupied territoryâ€, Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation, and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarek of Egypt Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize, because of it’s nuclear weapons. (Please note that al Qaeda called for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan again on March 25th.)

The long range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, Which would be upwards of 75% of known reserves. Third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration’s first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The Administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies, but to send a message to the jihadists.

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.

The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that nobody knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad, or Hussein’s willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups, including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration, as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed was to establish a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations world-wide, to “Stop the Warâ€. Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little-known politician as the thrust-point – Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the “Dean Phenomenonâ€.

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the “Hate Bush†crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e. Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves, it will mot go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life-changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the jihadists following the 9/11 was how American sentiment mobilized around the President, and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country.

They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons why we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished…â€two steps forward, one step back.â€

A couple of additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter administration, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the “advice and counsel†of this despicable little hypocrite.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling 20% of the population.

We are in a battle for our lives, a battle which will go on for many years, possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing, or falter in the challenge of “knowing our enemy†the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world’s oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations. There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party’s nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad, or they do know and they don’t care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters ARE aware of this, and will do anything they can to bring it about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That guy was not pc when he said the war on terror was a Islamic insurgency.... it's time to start to round the up ze muslims.... wow_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush-bash 9/11 might piss off a certain folk.....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....eit_911

Quote[/b] ]

"This movie is slanted — it's a backlash at the president, taking the view that U.S. leadership is incompetent," said Miguel Brown, 22, a production assistant who did not work on the movie. "Moore makes it look like U.S. soldiers in Iraq were thrown into battle straight off the streets. The American army is better than that." Brown is the son of a military officer.

Quote[/b] ]

Moore revives the old pre-Iraq war stereotype of Bush as a hapless, inarticulate bungler but with a twist; Bush is portrayed as lazy, a failure of will and not genes.

crazy_o.gif

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A849-2004Jun23.html

Quote[/b] ]

Much of the factual squabbling so far between Bush and Moore supporters involve the movie's portrayal of business relationships between the Bush and bin Laden families. Issues include whether Bush approved planes to carry Saudis, including bin Ladens, out of the country right after Sept. 11, 2001, before they could be interviewed and whether Salem bin Laden invested in Bush's Texas oil company. With his rapid editing, racing from fact to fact, Moore leaves the impression that Bush and his cronies stood to benefit not just from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but from Sept. 11.

But both Clarke and the 9/11 Commission have said investigators did nothing wrong by chartering those flights. And as for the oil investment: "Even if it happened, its significance is nothing," says Peter Bergen, author of "Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden." "Salem couldn't be more different than Osama bin Laden. He loved the U.S. He spent a lot of time in Houston. He played guitar. He is the mirror image of Osama."

Quote[/b] ]

Another controversy arose over the portrayal of Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-Minn.) in the trailer, and later in the movie. In a throwback to his "Roger and Me" days, Moore went to Capitol Hill and stuck a microphone in the face of various congressmen to ask them whether they would help sign up their children to fight in Iraq. Most knew to duck Moore, but Kennedy was polite enough to stop.

In the movie Kennedy is shown seemingly trapped and afraid. In reality he explained to Moore that he has a nephew serving in Afghanistan and he would like to help in the recruiting effort, particularly for those congressmen who supported the war.

Quote[/b] ]

On his Web site Moore prints the exchange between him and Kennedy but still says the film's portrayal is factually accurate. He then badgers Kennedy for failing to live up to his promise and actually ask members of Congress to sign up their kin.

Quote[/b] ]

Paul Rieckhoff fought in Iraq for a year and came back to start "Operation Truth" to tell Americans that war is not some video game

Quote[/b] ]

"It's obviously slanted in one way, so if you take it as your only source of information that would be pretty narrow. But some people will love it, some will hate it."

Quote[/b] ]

But, he added, "I'm ticked off at the way he portrays soldiers. It really makes them look stupid, like these testosterone-enraged mindless killers, like a bunch of barbarians. I'm going to tell him that."

Typical Moore...maybe I watch a bootleg of it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another interesting conspiracy theory, found on military.com

Exactly what point(s) in this article are you referring to as conspiracy? rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Exactly what point(s) in this article are you referring to as conspiracy?

Just the fact that it points to a long time, collective effort by muslims to infiltrate and destroy the western world. That constitutes a conspiracy. You know, when people conspire against others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explosions in Ankara and Istanbul Bombings

Quote[/b] ]A bomb attack in Istanbul has killed two people and injured seven others, just hours after an earlier explosion in the Turkish capital, Ankara.
sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just the fact that it points to a long time, collective effort by muslims to infiltrate and destroy the western world.

Do u know for how long Poland have been fighting with Ottoman Empire? I mean Turks, Tatars, ect., ect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Polands been fighting almost everyone for a long time tounge_o.gif

Besides which the western world does not consist entirely (and barely at all in some ways) of Poland or for that matter the balkans either (long time Christian/Muslim battleground). Also Muslims could cite historical examples of possible Christian attempts to destroy the islamic world (in the crusades, other invasions and occupations etc), Yet that does not mean that there is some concerted collective effort, some grand scheme by the western world to destroy the eastern world of Islam (even if there was in medieval times).

If both sides hold negative and backward looking perceptions of the other then east and west will never meet and there will be no peace, no coming together and no half decent future to look forward to. Look at Turkey, its islamic yet secular and wants to join the European Union. I think Wahhabism is a rather backwards even disturbing movement but Wahhabism does not = Islam. Just like those friends of Bush the Christian fundamentalists do not represent Christianity as a whole much less the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't aggree that crusades was as planned as muslim's conquests. They were from time to time, and conquest was continuous process. It was more less beginning of XIX century when Muslims were been pushing back from Balkans and other territories, and rather because of independece trials of occupied nations, than planned action.

@IsthatyouJohnWayne tounge_o.gif

True, all i wanted to say is that for hundreds of years we were defending. We even did not have to go to crusades (there were no beer there ;) ), and for all this time muslims wanted to conquest Europe. I do not want to say that Europe is "white as angels" - both sides wanted to destroy each other.

From the other side Turkey was our "best" enemy. It was the only country who did not aggreed with occupation of Poland in XVIII and XIX century, they always been waiting for

representative from Lechistan, and we remember it too. So it means that even enemies in time can become at last neutral to ech other

Sorry for a little off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Saudis say amongst themselves. Frightening reading.

Quote[/b] ]Incitement to Jihad on Saudi Government-Controlled TV

By: Steven Stalinsky*

As part of MEMRI's TV Monitoring Project, Saudi government controlled television channels including TV1, TV2 and satellite channels such as Iqraa TV, are continually monitored. [1] These channels include shows with leading Saudi religious figures, professors, members of the royal family, government leaders and intellectuals. Constant themes within Saudi television shows include: calls for the annihilation of Christians and Jews, rampant anti-Americanism and antisemitism, support for Jihad, incitement against U.S. troops in Iraq, and the coming Islamic conquest of the U.S. Segments from these TV shows can be found at www.memriTV.org.

Saudi Religious Establishment 'Demonstrated that It is the Body Most Competent … at De-Legitimizing Al Qa'ida's Cultist Ideology'

In a June 15 press release, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, maintained that "senior religious scholars in Saudi Arabia have continually and unequivocally condemned terrorism. In our war against terrorism, these condemnations are a powerful weapon."In this statement, as well as in close to two dozen others by the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. since the Riyadh bombings on March 12, 2003, the government of Saudi Arabia promoted the idea that the royal family and religious establishment have been espousing a message of tolerance. As Nail Al-Jubeir, director of the Saudi information office, said on May 6, 2004: "Our religious establishment has taught moderation to our people. The religious establishment has demonstrated that it is the body most competent and effective at de-legitimizing Al Qa'ida's cultist ideology."

In fact, on June 20, 2004, Saudi cleric Dr. Muhammad Bin Suleiman Al-Mani'i hosted a talk show on Saudi TV 1 and spoke out against killing Jews and Christians. Excerpts of his statements include: " Islamic law in general prohibits any Muslim from raising a weapon against any lover of peace – dhimmi (protected person), Jewish or Christian, a merchant, or anyone who enters (the country) on a work contract. Islamic law permits raising a weapon only against whomever aims a weapon at the Muslim in order to fight him."

While Al-Mani'i's statement against killing Jews and Christians is almost unprecedented within Saudi Arabia, he went on to explain that if non-Muslims are treated well by Muslims, they will eventually convert to Islam: "The Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian subjects had their autonomous rule under Islam, and at the same time these Muslim states, and the caliphs, preserved their rights, treated them well, maintained neighborly relations and dealt with them honestly and in good faith, treated their sick, granted them their rights, and called them to convert to Islam. Therefore, the Jewish, Christian, and other subjects converted to Islam."

Saudi Professor: Allah Permits Annihilating Christians and Jews

Sheik Dr. Ahmad Abd Al-Latif, a professor at Um Al-Qura University , was asked the following question on Saudi channel TV1 on May 24: "Some imams and preachers call for Allah to annihilate the Jews and those who help them, and the Christians and those who support them… Is it permitted according to Islamic law?" Professor Al-Latif responded: "What made them curse the Jews is that the Jews are oppressors… The same goes for the Christians, because of their cruel aggression against Islamic countries … while the truth is that this is a crusading war whose goal is to harm Muslims. This is why a Muslim is allowed to curse the oppressors from among the Jews and Christians… Cursing the oppressing Jews and the oppressing and plundering Christians and the prayer that Allah will annihilate them is permitted."

Former Saudi Embassy Official on 'Big Explosion' Coming

j

Sheik Muhammad Al-Munajid, a disciple of one of Saudi Arabia's most revered religious leaders, Sheik 'Abd Al-'Aziz ibn 'Abdallah ibn Baaz , was identified in a report in the Washington Post on December 11, 2003, as running "a Web site that promotes intolerance of Christians and Jews and calls for holy war on Shiite Muslims," and was included as one of sixteen clerics associated with the Saudi embassy's Islamic Affairs Department who was stripped of diplomatic credentials.

Al-Munajid stated on Iqraa TV on April 15: "The issue is not one person, two, ten or a hundred going out with their guns to support their brothers. Defeating the infidels requires a much greater effort. It requires the mobilization of the nation. How can the nation be mobilized? I believe that the stupid acts of these Jews and Crusaders mobilize the nation. The big explosion will come! In spite of everything, it will happen!"

Much of Saudi TV is based upon religious programming. Many of these programs refer to the spread of Islam throughout the world and the battle against non-Muslims. On a May 20 episode of Iqraa TV's 'Mushkilat Min Al-Hayat ' (Problems from Life), Saudi Sheik Abdallah Al-Muslih, chairman of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Koran and Sunnah of the Muslim World League, used evidence from early Islam to support his claim that suicide bombings on enemy land are permitted according to Islamic law: "… Regarding a person who blows himself up, I know this issue is under disagreement among modern clerics and jurisprudents… There is nothing wrong with [martyrdom] if they cause great damage to the enemy. We can say that if it causes great damage to the enemy, this operation is a good thing. This is when we talk of Dar Al-Harb. But, if we speak of what happens in Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia … this is forbidden, brothers! This is the land of the Muslims. We must never do this in a Muslim country."

Prominent Saudi Professor: Allah Willing, the U.S. Will Collapse

Supporting Jihad against U.S. troops in Iraq is the topic of many Saudi TV programs. On May 10, Dr. Yassin Al-Khatib, a professor of Islamic law at Um Al-Qura University, declared on the UAE's Al-Majd TV, which frequently has Saudi guests on it, that "the honor, blood, property and mostly the fact that they entered the country [i.e. Iraq] … make it every Muslim's duty to go out against them, not only the Iraqis. This is every Muslim's duty. Jihad today has become an individual duty that applies to each and every Muslim. It is forbidden for a person to remain silent… When the Muslims fought in Afghanistan they destroyed the Soviet Union, which was a superpower. It collapsed and Allah willing, so will this [the U.S.] collapse."

The Coming Islamic Takeover of the U.S.

Saudis often discuss the issue of the U.S. becoming a Muslim state in the future. On a March 17 broadcast on Iqraa TV, Saudi preacher Sheik Said Al-Qahtani discussed this issue, as well as the cases in which Muslims are permitted to declare a defensive Jihad: "… We did not occupy the U.S., with 8 million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient, and let time take its course, instead of the 8 million, there could have been 80 million [Muslims] and 50 years later perhaps all the US would have become Muslim… What should a Muslim do if he is attacked in his country, on his land? In this case, there is no choice besides defense, self-sacrifice, and what religious scholars call – Defensive Jihad… We attacked their country, and this caused them to wake the dormant enmity in their hearts… Especially since there is global Zionism, the enemy of Islam, and Judaism, and fundamentalist Crusaders… They interpret this whole incident as only the beginning and thus there is no choice but a preemptive strike."

Al-Qahtani added on another Iqraa TV show on May 5: "Allah said, 'prepare against them all the force and horsemen that you can.' What for? In order to strike fear into their hearts… At the same time, [we should] establish strategies for the future, even if only for the short term, and prepare … so that one of these days, even 100, 200, or 400 years from now, we will become a force that will be feared by the infidel states."

Prominent Saudi Professor: America is on It's Way to Destruction

Saudi professor Nasser Bin Suleiman Al-Omar, who runs a large Islamic internet website, www.almoslim.net , appeared on Al-Majd, on June 13, 2004, to discuss the approaching collapse of the U.S. and the growing strength of Muslims within the U.S. Al-Omar stated: "America is collapsing from within. Where are America's principles of justice and democracy? …Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. Today, America is defeated. I have no doubt, not even for a minute, that America is on its way to destruction. But as Ibn Khaldoun said, just as it takes decades for nations to rise, it takes them decades to collapse. They don't collapse overnight. Because Communist Russia opposed reality it collapsed immediately. America may not collapse this way. It will be destroyed gradually. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient."

Saudi Arabia's Highest Ranking Government-Appointed Cleric: Hopefully the Jews' End Will Soon Occur

One month prior to Canada's decision to bar Saudi Arabia's highest ranking government-appointed cleric, Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, from entering the country, [2] the Saudi preacher gave a sermon on Saudi TV 1 discussing Jihad. Al-Sudayyis, who serves as one of the imams of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, stated: "The history of the Jewish people is written in black ink, and has included a series of murders of the prophets, the Mujaheedin and righteous people… But maybe it is the beginning of their end… You have revived the hopes of this nation through your blessed Jihad… With Allah's help, one of two good things will be awarded you: either victory or martyrdom." On June 11, Al-Sudayyis was given the honor of leading Friday prayers for over 10,000 worshippers gathered in the East London Mosque to hear him call, in English, for interfaith peace and harmony in an event that included Prince Charles via satellite and British Minister for Racial Equality, Fiona MacTaggart . [3]

In reaction to the May 1, 2004 terrorist shooting in the offices of an oil contractor in Yunbu', Saudi Arabia, in which seven people, among them two Americans, were killed, Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah ibn Abd Al-'Aziz stated at a gathering of Saudi dignitaries, including top Muslim clerics and preachers, that "the Zionists" were to blame. The statement was made at a May 2 gathering of the royal family, which aired on Saudi TV 1: "Be assured that the Zionist are behind everything. This is certain. I don't say this with 100% [confidence], but with 95%."

In addition to other leading Saudi officials, such as Interior Minister Prince Nayef, the following day Dr. Salem Al-Aufi, the secretary general of King Fahd Center for Printing the Koran, reiterated on Saudi TV 1: "Yesterday we heard the Crown Prince say that Zionism is behind these attacks. Who helps them carry out these kinds of attacks? Who gives them money? Who gives them weapons? Who presents them with the evil ideology that brought them to this? There is no doubt that behind this, there are international organizations aspiring to undermine this country's security, and terminate its achievements, and at the top of these organizations stands Zionism, the enemy of the religion."

Saudi Royal Family Can End Jihad Programming at Any Time

According to the websites of the television channels mentioned in this article, programming is presented by the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information and is advertised as a "balanced blend of religious and cultural programs." The Ministry of Culture and Information's website indicates that it is responsible for the Kingdom's television and radio broadcasting and publication of printed material, and one of its defined roles includes the undertaking of information campaigns for the Kingdom. Therefore, the Saudi royal family can end its support for Jihad programming at any time.

*Steven Stalinsky is Executive Director of MEMRI.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Today, as part ofMEMRI's Capitol HillLecture Series, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Rick Santorum (R-PA) sponsored a MEMRI briefing that included a screening of recent broadcasts from Saudi government-controlled TV. Many of these broadcasts include anti-American incitement, antisemitism, and support for Jihad.

[2] According to the May 15, 2004 edition of the National Post (Canada), Conservative Canadian MP Jason Kenney said: "Al-Sudayyis refers to Jews as 'the scum of the Earth,' and he exhorts his followers against the Christian 'worshippers of the cross' and the 'idol-worshipping Hindus.'"

[3] Arab News (Saudi Arabia), June 12, 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court just handed down the decision that the 600 detainees at Guatanamo Bay do indeed have a right to lawyers, and access to federal court to hear their cases. A defeat to Bush.

Also they handed down the decision that Jose Padilla has the right to a lawyer, and the courts, another defeat for Bush as well.

A third case was heard about another US born "terrorist". Their decision initially favored the Bush arguement, but they still said that he as well has the right to a lawyer and courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Supreme Court just handed down the decision that the 600 detainees at Guatanamo Bay do indeed have a right to lawyers, and access to federal court to hear their cases. A defeat to Bush.

Also they handed down the decision that Jose Padilla has the right to a lawyer, and the courts, another defeat for Bush as well.

A third case was heard about another US born "terrorist". Their decision initially favored the Bush arguement, but they still said that he as well has the right to a lawyer and courts.

Where did you hear all of this?

The have not decided yet on Guantanamo prisoners and on Padilla.

Quote[/b] ]Bush Can Hold U.S. Citizens Without Trial

3 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush (news - web sites) the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

The 6-3 ruling sided with the administration on an important legal point raised in the war on terrorism. At the same time, it left unanswered other hard questions raised by the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer.

The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.

"We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) wrote for the court.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government's position fully, and Hamdi's case now returns to a lower court.

The careful opinion seemed deferential to the White House, but did not give the president everything he wanted.

The ruling is the largest test so far of executive power in the post-Sept. 11 assault on terrorism.

The court has yet to rule in the similar case of American-born detainee Jose Padilla and in another case testing the legal rights of detainees held as enemy combatants at a U.S. military prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) and Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) in her view that Congress had authorized detentions such as Hamdi's in what she called very limited circumstances.

Congress voted shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks to give the president significant authority to pursue terrorists, but Hamdi's lawyers said that authority did not extend to the indefinite detention of an American citizen without charges or trial.

Two other justices, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites), would have gone further and declared Hamdi's detention improper. Still, they joined O'Connor and the others to say that Hamdi, and by extension others who may be in his position, are entitled to their day in court.

Hamdi and Padilla are in military custody at a Navy brig in South Carolina. They have been interrogated repeatedly without lawyers present.

The Bush administration contends that as "enemy combatants," the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed.

The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision.

The case has additional resonance because of recent revelations that U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners and used harsh interrogation methods at a prison outside Baghdad. For some critics of the administration's security measures, the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison illustrated what might go wrong if the military and White House have unchecked authority over prisoners.

At oral arguments in the Padilla case in April, an administration lawyer assured the court that Americans abide by international treaties against torture, and that the president or the military would not allow even mild torture as a means to get information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]With this practical approach to spreading the “wordâ€, Islam grew like wildfire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the “First Great Jihadâ€, and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France – the Father of Charlemagne – stopped them in the battle of Tours, in France, after they had firmly established Islam in the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times, until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Grenada.

It was the battle of Poitiers won by Charles Martel for fuck's sake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Supreme Court just handed down the decision that the 600 detainees at Guatanamo Bay do indeed have a right to lawyers, and access to federal court to hear their cases. A defeat to Bush.

Also they handed down the decision that Jose Padilla has the right to a lawyer, and the courts, another defeat for Bush as well.

A third case was heard about another US born "terrorist". Their decision initially favored the Bush arguement, but they still said that he as well has the right to a lawyer and courts.

Where did you hear all of this?

The have not decided yet on Guantanamo prisoners and on Padilla.

Quote[/b] ]Bush Can Hold U.S. Citizens Without Trial

3 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush (news - web sites) the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

The 6-3 ruling sided with the administration on an important legal point raised in the war on terrorism. At the same time, it left unanswered other hard questions raised by the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer.

The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.

"We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) wrote for the court.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government's position fully, and Hamdi's case now returns to a lower court.

The careful opinion seemed deferential to the White House, but did not give the president everything he wanted.

The ruling is the largest test so far of executive power in the post-Sept. 11 assault on terrorism.

The court has yet to rule in the similar case of American-born detainee Jose Padilla and in another case testing the legal rights of detainees held as enemy combatants at a U.S. military prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) and Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) in her view that Congress had authorized detentions such as Hamdi's in what she called very limited circumstances.

Congress voted shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks to give the president significant authority to pursue terrorists, but Hamdi's lawyers said that authority did not extend to the indefinite detention of an American citizen without charges or trial.

Two other justices, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites), would have gone further and declared Hamdi's detention improper. Still, they joined O'Connor and the others to say that Hamdi, and by extension others who may be in his position, are entitled to their day in court.

Hamdi and Padilla are in military custody at a Navy brig in South Carolina. They have been interrogated repeatedly without lawyers present.

The Bush administration contends that as "enemy combatants," the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed.

The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision.

The case has additional resonance because of recent revelations that U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners and used harsh interrogation methods at a prison outside Baghdad. For some critics of the administration's security measures, the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison illustrated what might go wrong if the military and White House have unchecked authority over prisoners.

At oral arguments in the Padilla case in April, an administration lawyer assured the court that Americans abide by international treaties against torture, and that the president or the military would not allow even mild torture as a means to get information.

I just heard it on the news. Special News Break on CBS, ABC, and NBC.

I'm sure the stories will be out soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how to design for homeland security smile_o.gif

http://www.zefrank.com/redalert/index_better.html

LOL!

Akira, yes the news has been updated. Talk about clumsy reporting!

Quote[/b] ]Terror Suspects Win Right to U.S. Courts

4 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback to the Bush administration's war against terrorism Monday, ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seized as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a setback just to Bush - it's a setback to the entire country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]BREAKING NEWS

The United States has formally resumed diplomatic ties with Libya after a 24-year break, the State Department says. Details soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Yeah, we should be going all the way: summary execution, torture chambers and concentration camps

Hmmm....Maybe, it could be that the informants/other info. in Al-Q and etc. can exposed.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how to design for homeland security smile_o.gif

http://www.zefrank.com/redalert/index_better.html

LOL!

Akira, yes the news has been updated. Talk about clumsy reporting!

Quote[/b] ]Terror Suspects Win Right to U.S. Courts

4 minutes ago  

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback to the Bush administration's war against terrorism Monday, ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seized as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a setback just to Bush - it's a setback to the entire country.

Avon your my kind of gal! When do you get off work? wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×