|
Just some numbers:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Accidental deaths exceed those in combat
By Martin Kasindorf, USA TODAY
In the first seven days of fighting in Iraq, accidents and friendly fire ??? not enemy actions ??? accounted for nearly two-thirds of the reported deaths of U.S. and British troops.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-26-count_usat_x.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Interesting increase of tension in the Middle East.
First, Israel bombs Syria. No justification, no cause, no international agreement that it might be warranted. Not even a vague attempt to consult the United Nations. They simply flew over and bombed Syria.
Shooting over the Israel-Lebanon border.
Outrage in Syria over the Israeli bombs. Understandable.
Then, for some insane reason, the USA backs Israel, claiming it was right for Israel to unilaterally decide to go and bomb a sovereign nation. Well, I guess that just shows us who pays the bills in Washington DC.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Israeli soldier killed on Lebanese border
Tuesday 07 October 2003, 5:08 Makka Time, 2:08 GMT
A Israeli soldier has been shot dead in an exchange of fire across the tense Lebanon-Israeli border.
Israeli troops came under fire from the Lebanese side of the border Monday evening, said Aljazeera???s correspondent in Israel quoting local security sources. Two other soldiers were reportedly wounded.
In a separate incident, a Lebanese boy was killed in unclear circumstances early Tuesday morning.
Israel said Hizb Allah fighters were responsible for the killing of its soldier. But the Lebanese resistance group has denied its forces were involved.
In response, Israeli troops returned fire and hit a bus travelling along a normally secure road near the border between the villages of Adayseh and Kfarkila, agencies reported. There were no casualties, Lebanese police said.
Hizb Allah was formed as a resistance group in the early 1980s following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Backed by Syria and Iran, it waged a guerrilla against Israeli occupation forces and their local proxies until 2000, when Israel pulled its troops back.
Missile death
Early on Tuesday, a missile landed on a house in a south Lebanon town, killing a boy and wounding his brother.
One security source told Reuters in Beirut the origin of the missile was unclear. Other security sources said the missile was probably fired at Israel from inside Lebanon but fell short.
The missile-related death and cross-border shooting followed an earlier incident, when a lorry belonging to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was hit by gunfire on Monday, agencies reported.
"A UNIFIL water truck was hit by three bullets from the
Israeli side," a UN official told Reuters. "All our trucks are clearly marked.
Regional tension
Lebanese security sources also said Israeli troops had opened fire across the border earlier in the day. But Israel denied its troops had been involved.
The border incidents come amid great regional tension, just a day after Israel launched its deepest air strike into Syria for 30 years, attacking what it said was a training camp for Islamic jihad fighters.
It described the raid as self-defence following a bombing of a restaurant in the Israeli town of Haifa on Saturday that left 19 dead.
The airstrike has attracted widespread international criticism and worries about regional stability.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7D5620B5-5846-4AD8-8441-BB1B14B6A48A.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Syrian public outrage over attack
Monday 06 October 2003, 19:46 Makka Time, 16:46 GMT
Many ordinary Syrians have voiced their anger over Israel's air strike near Damascus, with some calling for reprisals and others enraged by US reaction.
The raid, Israel's deepest into Syria since the 1973 Middle East war, was a violent shock.
One taxi driver, Mahir Awad, echoed others around him who hoped for a military response on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the war.
Awad said: ???I couldn't believe my ears when I heard. I wish I was there with a shotgun in my hand.???
A university student, Jamal, said he hoped the government would send its own air force ???to show them what Syrians can do".
US criticises Damascus
Israel alleges the raid targeted a training camp for Palestinian resistance fighters.
But Syria denies the accusation and denounced the attack.
Damascus has also urged the United States not to block a UN Security Council resolution condemning the attack.
However, US Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte has accused Syria of harbouring "terrorists" and refused to criticise Tel Aviv for the strike.
Sharon's record
One elderly man, Abu Qasim said: "This man [Negroponte] was talking as if he owns the world telling us we are terrorists. Did he forget what [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon did in Sabra and Shatila?"
Sharon, then defence minister, is widely blamed for the 1982 massacre by Israeli-backed Lebanese Christian militiamen in Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon, in which hundreds of civilians were killed.
"There is no sense of right and wrong anymore. Those Americans and Israelis think they are strong but they forget that Allah is stronger."
"There is no sense of right and wrong anymore," Abu Qasim added. "Those Americans and Israelis think they are strong but they forget that Allah is stronger."
Iman, a housewife, said she was scared after the raid that her children were not safe.
"If they did it once they can do it again and the next time it may be bigger. They kill people in Palestine all the time," added the young mother of two.
Palestinian reaction
She was the only one to voice fear among a dozen people interviewed in Damascus, but her concern was echoed at Palestinian camps in Beirut.
"The Israeli monster is out of control now, no one can stop it. It has gone crazy," said Walid, a resident of Burj al-Barajna camp. "All Palestinians abroad are targets now."
The Israeli raid was widely seen to have further damaged any prospect for Middle East peace.
"All this talk about peace is false. What the Israelis really want is new massacres," said Abu Salah, a resident of Beirut's Shatila camp.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D3F4ACBB-A265-4268-AFEC-6996D0F835D0.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Syria backed by UN, blamed by US
Monday 06 October 2003, 19:02 Makka Time, 16:02 GMT
Faisal Mikdad, Syria's UN envoy, called for censure of Israel
UN members have lined up in the Security Council to condemn Israel after its deepest air raid into Syria in 30 years, with one predictable exception - the United States.
In an emergency meeting of the 15-nation council, called after Israel attacked what it claimed was a training camp for Palestinian resistance fighters near Damascus, council member Syria called for an immediate vote on a draft resolution condemning the Israeli action.
Syrian Ambassador Faisal Mikdad urged the council to voice "grave concern" at the escalating tensions in the Middle East and condemn the Israeli raid as a violation of international law and the UN Charter.
But Israel insisted that the raid, carried out a day after a Palestinian resistance bombing in Haifa killed 19 people, was carried out in self-defence, as a measure against terrorist attacks.
The United States, Israel???s key ally, downplayed the raid instead accusing Damascus of fuelling terrorism.
Israel accuses Damascus of fuelling attacks by harbouring, training and funding Palestinian guerilla groups.
All but one
Of those council members who spoke during the emergency session, all but Washington denounced both the Haifa attack and the raid on Syria.
"The answer to individual acts of terrorism is not state terrorism nor is it wanton attacks against other countries in violation of international law."
Even the US???s nominal allies in its ???war on terror??? accused Israel of illegal aggression.
Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias told the council that the Haifa bombing "cannot lead us to overlook or minimise the extreme gravity of the attack perpetrated today against Syria. That attack is a clear violation of international law."
British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry strongly condemned the Haifa bombing, but said Israel's attack represented an escalation of the conflict and undermined the peace process.
Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram went further, saying, "The answer to individual acts of terrorism is not state terrorism nor is it wanton attacks against other countries in violation of international law."
Dozens of Middle Eastern ambassadors also slammed Israel.
US counsels 'restraint'
But US Ambassador John Negroponte, who has veto power in the council, was critical only of Syria.
He said Washington had learned about the raid only after it was carried out and had advised both Syria and Israel to exercise restraint.
"And we have consistently told Syria that it must cease harbouring terrorists and make a clean break from those who are responsible for the planning and directing of terrorist actions from Syrian soil," he added.
"Let's not forget that a suicide bombing took place in Haifa ... It just is incredible to me that a draft resolution ... would have no reference whatever to this dastardly act"
Negroponte also made clear the Syrian draft, which made no reference to the Haifa bombing, would not pass as written.
"Let's not forget that a suicide bombing took place in Haifa; 19 Israelis were killed, including some Arab Israelis; 50 more people were wounded. It just is incredible to me that a draft resolution coming from a member of the council would have no reference whatever to this dastardly act," he said.
Tables turned
Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman accused Syria of "complicity and responsibility" in Palestinian attacks on his country and said Syria should be in the dock.
"For Syria to ask for a debate of the council is comparable to the Taliban calling for such a debate on 9/11. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious," he said.
The Taliban provided a base for al-Qaida, which Washington blames for the 11 September, 2001 attacks.
The fate of the resolution was unclear after the emergency session ended late on Sunday evening.
Negroponte said the measure would first have to be sent to capitals for study and added that there had as yet been no discussion of the timing of any vote.
Other diplomats said there would certainly be no action on Monday, the Yom Kippur Jewish holiday.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1BF523F3-A395-451D-9910-36B7BF02B7DB.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Over the last ten years or so, the United Nations has tried many times to pass resolutions condemning Israel's ethnic cleansing activities against the Palestinian people. The USA continually blocks those resolutions. In fact, the majority of blocked resolutions fo the past ten years have been those the UN would have passed against Israel, all blocked by the USA.
Now Israel has attacked another sovereign nation. They bombed a site within Syria. At least fifty people wounded. The UN Security Council is in an emergency meeting. I would not be surprised to see a large war starting there, possibly spreading, in the years to come. The USA, based in Iraq, supporting Israel. And all the Arabic nations around them joining forces. Maybe.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Israeli strike sparks Arab outcry
By Jason Keyser in Majdal Shams, Golan Heights
October 6, 2003
ISRAEL yesterday bombed a target inside Syria that it claimed was an Islamic Jihad training base, striking deep inside its neighbour's territory for the first time in three decades and widening its pursuit of Palestinian militants.
Yesterday's airstrike - a retaliation for a suicide bombing on Saturday that killed 19 Israelis - alarmed the Arab world and deepened concerns that three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence could spread through the region.
Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for Saturday's bombing, in which 55 people were wounded.
Washington urged both sides to show restraint - but added pointed criticism of Syria, saying Damascus "must cease harbouring terrorists and make a clean break from those responsible for planning and directing terrorist action from Syrian soil".
On requests from Damascus, the UN Security Council and the 22-member Arab League held emergency sessions today as Syria's foreign minister Farouq al-Sharaa sought measures to deter Israeli "aggression".
Syria's UN Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad called on the council to adopt a resolution condemning the attack.
"Arabs and many people across the globe feel that Israel is above law," Mr Mekdad said.
Israel's Ambassador Dan Gillerman defended the attack. He accused Syria of providing "safe harbour, training facilities, funding, (and) logistical support" to terrorist organisations.
Syria's draft calls for Israel to stop committing acts that could threaten regional security. It was unclear when the council would vote on the resolution or whether the United States would veto it.
Camp 'abandoned'
Leaders of Islamic Jihad and other militant groups are based in Syria, but Jihad has denied having any training bases there.
Syrian villagers near the targeted site said the camp had been used by Palestinian gunmen in the 1970s but was later abandoned - and was now only used by picnickers and other visitors.
Israel said the bombing signalled it would pursue militants wherever they found support - and it added an accusation that Iran also backs Islamic Jihad.
"Any country who harbours terrorism, who trains (terrorists), supports and encourages them will be responsible to answer for their actions," Government spokesman Avi Pazner said.
In the West Bank, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat declared a state of emergency and installed an emergency Cabinet with Ahmed Qurie as prime minister.
The action was an apparent attempt to deflect possible Israeli action against Arafat following the suicide bombing since Israel had threatened to expel him.
'More to come'
The leader of Islamic Jihad, Ramadan Shallah, told Dubai-based Al-Arabiya TV that the Israeli attack was "a grave development that exceeded all rules of the game."
He also warned Israel that the suicide bombing "will not be the last resistance operation" committed by his group.
The strike was launched just hours before the start of Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar.
It also came on the eve of the anniversary of the 1973 war between Israel and Syria, when Israel fought off a Syrian attack aimed at reversing Israel's 1967 seizure of the Golan Heights, a strategic border plateau.
Sunday marked Israel's first military action deep in Syria since 1973.
The tiny Syrian-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command said it once used the camp, 22.5km northwest of Damascus, but that it is now deserted. A civilian guard was injured in the air strike, the group said.
Groups linked
However, a senior Popular Front member, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that there is close cooperation between his group, Islamic Jihad, the militant group Hamas, and the Lebanese guerrilla faction Hezbollah.
All four train together, mostly in Lebanon, but also in Syria, he said.
In an understanding with the Syrian government, Hamas and Jihad leaders have been careful in recent months to give statements from Lebanon to avoid the impression that they still operate from Damascus.
Still, Syrian President Bashar Assad is on the defensive, with the United States accusing him of hosting extremist groups and sponsoring terror.
Assad, after meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in May in Damascus, indicated that his government had closed certain offices of Palestinian militant groups.
However, last weekend, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Syria needed to do more.
It seemed unlikely Syria would retaliate. It has 380,000 active duty soldiers, but Israel holds a commanding technological edge.
Israel is more worried about Syria's growing missile program and its ability to launch chemical and poison weapons into Israel's cities.
Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon - three Arab countries border Israel - condemned the air strike. "It can drag the whole region into a circle of violence," said Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher.
The Associated Press
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7473991%255E401,00.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Syria: Israel attacked civilian area
Sunday 05 October 2003, 19:36 Makka Time, 16:36 GMT
Syria has said Israeli forces attacked a civilian area near Damascus in a "grave escalation" of tensions in the Middle East.
Damascus is capable of deterring Israel but will practice restraint, Syria's Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara said in a letter to the United Nations on Sunday.
The Israelis had earlier claimed that it attacked an Islamic Jihad and Hamas training base in the Ain al-Sahab area, about 20km northwest of Damascus.
It did not say whether air or ground forces carried out the strike, but an unnamed security source was quoted as saying that it was an air attack early on Sunday.
Both the Islamic Jihad and Syrian sources have denied that the area housed a training base.
"Jihad has no combatants outside the Palestinian territories," the group's Beirut-based spokesman Abu Imad Rifai told Aljazeera.
Syrian analyst Dr Imad Shuaibi said the attack was aimed at sparking chaos in the region and send a message to Damascus that Israel was willing to take military action.
Shuaibi said the area housed refugees.
Denial
Islamic Jihad insists its activists in Syria are part of the group's media bureau.
Several civilians were injured in the strike, said a Lebanon-based official for Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).
"The significance of the operation is more in terms of its symbolic message to the Syrians... It simply says that nobody is immune" - Eran Lerman, a retired senior Israeli military intelligence officer.
The attack is believed to be the first Israeli strike deep into Syrian territory since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. It took place on the eve of that war's 30th anniversary.
An anonymous source said the attack targeted "an abandoned training camp" that belonged to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
Israel could launch more attacks in Syria if it continues to support what they said were "terrorist organisations" preparing anti-Israeli attacks, according to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad are spearheading the three-year old Palestinian Intifada against Israel's occupation.
Reaction
Syria said it would complain to the UN Security Council. It also plans to ask the 15-member body to hold a special session to discuss the attacks, according to an unnamed diplomatic source.
Damascus is a member of the Security Council, but does not hold veto power.
Egypt's President Husni Mubarak condemned the strike, calling it an aggression against a "brother country".
Mubarak was speaking at a press conference in Cairo with visiting German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
For his part, Schroeder said the attack "cannot be accepted". The German Chancellor said regional peace efforts "become more complicated when...the sovereignty of a country is violated".
Gaza attack
The Israeli army said the attack was in response to Saturday's blast in the northern Israeli city of Haifa that killed about 19 people. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the blast.
In the occupied Gaza Strip, Israel launched two helicopter attacks on the homes of resistance fighters.
Helicopter gunships fired several missiles at al-Buraij refugee camp, shortly after 1am local time (23:00 GMT) on Sunday.
Witnesses said the target was the house of an Islamic Jihad activist, which was empty at the time. Israeli public radio said the target was an arms and explosives dump.
The attack came shortly after a similar strike on the Gaza City home of another resistance fighter, which left several people injured by flying glass.
Palestinian security sources identified him as Munthir Qanita, a member of the armed wing of the Islamist resistance group Hamas. His home was also reportedly empty at the time of the attack.
Haifa blast
The two Israeli missile attacks were an apparent reprisal for a bombing in Haifa in which a Palestinian woman from the occupied West Bank town of Jenin blew herself up and killed 19 others in a restaurant in the northern Israeli city.
Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack which followed continuing Israeli raids and killings in the Palestinian territories.
Israeli forces demolished the home of the bomber, Hanadi Jaradat, in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin during a dawn invasion.
Activists from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) tried to prevent occupation troops from destroying the house and were beaten by Israeli forces, reported our correspondent in Jenin.
Dozens of tanks stormed the city, as Israeli slapped a curfew on the population.
Fears for Arafat
Following the Haifa blast, Israel said the clock is ticking for Palestinian President Yasir Arafat.
An Israeli warplane was seen hovering over Arafat's Ram Allah compound in the occupied West Bank.
About 30 foreign and Israeli peace activists joined others at his headquarters in the West Bank town of Ram Allah to act as human shields.
The Israeli human shields reportedly include at least one former member of the Israeli parliament.
Clashes broke out in Ram Allah on Saturday night as deployed Israeli troops were confronted by stone-throwing Palestinian residents.
The Haifa bombing has renewed calls for Israel to carry out its decision to kill or remove Arafat.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AE871B47-A5D9-428E-B8E5-26E52D387622.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Some days I have the impression that most people simply are not aware of the undercurrents of global politics. In particular, I would like to focus now on what the slogan-generators have labelled the "War on Terror".
What is the War on Terror? Supposedly it is an attempt to hunt down and eliminate terrorists. However, there are several problems with this premise:
1) Larg-scale military operations such as demonstrated by the USA against Afghanistan and Iraq target entire nations or areas, rather than the small, mobile, secretive groups supposedly being hunted. Those small groups can be in any nation, even within the USA (as demonstrated by Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 chaps). They do not have to be in a distant nation, and in fact the dangerous groups are those within the USA, since that is their target and that is where they will act.
2) In this supposed War on Terror, the USA has instead destroyed the social order (good or bad) in two nations. Over 6,000 Iraqi civilians died during the USA's invasion (1). Neither invasion captured terrorist cells within the USA.
Regarding the invasion of Iraq in particular, what must we notice about the politics involved? First the USA claime a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks in America. No evidecne to support this claim was ever produced. Then the USA claimed Iraq supports terrorist groups. No evidence for this claim was produced either. Then the USA claimed Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons. Again, there was no evidence for the accusation. In fact, one document referring to Saddam Hussein's efforts to purchase uranium from Niger was proven to be a forgery. Likewise, claims that Iraq was preparing chemical and biological weapons were also without evidence. Yet the USA invaded, and killed over 6,000 Iraqi civilians. All this from the nation which boasts the mighty principle of justice "Innocent until proven guilty".
What about the morality of invading Iraq? Was Saddam Hussein a bad guy? Some say he gassed a lot of Kurds in Halabja. Some say he didn't (2). One thing I do know is that the USA is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against civilians (Nagasaki, Hiroshima), and the USA itself has used chemical and biological weapons both against foreign nations (3) and against its own people (4). The USA has over 300,000 soldiers on foreign soil. George Bush's cabinet is made up of people from large resource companies and such (5). The company Dick Cheney used to head (6) was given the contract to look after Iraq's oil without even having to bid for it.
I do believe that those capable of creating justice and equality should do so. I believe they have a duty to their fellow humans to do so. However, I do not believe this was the motivation for the USA's invasion of Iraq. I do not believe this is the motivation behind their ongoing War on Terror. The people suffering are the civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq. The people profiting are Bush's cabinet and their friends and families. Always, regarding global politics, we must look at two things: who loses something, and who gains something.
Apart from some people gaining money from these acts, what else might be behind it all? Consider the model or example given to us by George Orwel. A state which creates a fictitious enemy which can therefore never be beaten, an enemy which will always be there as the excuse for the state's machinations. So the USA labelled not any person or state or group as its prime adversary, but "terrorism". In indefinite enemy, to be fought over an indefinite time, through any means possible. This provides the state with the reason it needs to do just about anything. President Bush may simply say "We're at war, this is an emergency measure", to affect any changes he wishes within the USA. And in fact he did that very recently (7).
What we have is a nation on the edge of economic implosion. The USA is making spending cuts in health and education and other areas to pay for wars and occupations. This will result in less eduaction for the masses, and a greater number of the poor being willing to enter military service as their only means or earning a wage. More people in the military needs justfication for all that spending, so they need to be active; so they need more wars, more occupations. So far the USA has over 300,000 soldiers on foreign soil. With decreasing spending on health and education, and more of the lower economic classes turning to the military for health care and wages, and with the increasing tensions between the USA and everyone else, this creates a vicious (although intentional) circle.
What about these ill feelings between the USA and others? It seems to me that creating anger and resentment among other nations, particularly those who can't really harm the USA greatly, is the perfect way for the USA to justify its actions. Make them angry, until one or two strike back in some small way, and that strike will provide them with justification for invasions and wars and more. Retaliation against the USA is precisely what Bush wants, as it will perfectly justify everything he has said and done. So, no doubt we will see further off-hand comments from Bush now and then, further trade sanctions, a few more military actions, and eventually there will be a bomb in a USA federal building, and then Bush will say "This is why we're doing it. It needs to be done." And the unfortunate part is that the only real choice some folks have is to perform those retaliatory strikes. It's either that or do nothing and be trampled underfoot.
Does this mean I support terrorism? Absolutely not. To me, terrorism is attacking civilians. To me, this is what the USA did by killing over 6,000 Iraqi civilians. It was terrorism by a state. I do not approve of ANY terrorism, by states or by other groups. I can only hope that all forms of warfare in the future are restricted only to military and government targets, but I doubt this will happen.
Well, I'm almost done now. Some people make assumptions that Iraq had something to do with those 9/11 attacks, even though there is no evidence for it. Some people assume that governments can afford to do things out of altruism. And some of us look at who gains what. Which are you?
NOTES:
1) www.iraqbodycount.net
2) http://forums.transnationale.org/viewtopic.php?t=1458
3) http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=agent+orange+vietnam+birth+defects&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
4) http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html
5) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/1138009.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/1081349.stm
http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp
6) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
7) http://www.archivists.org/news/secrecyorder.asp
Here you can find a list of cuts to education and labour-support made by George Bush since his non-election:
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/bushwatch/bushwatch_archive.cfm
Read the entire news story first.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Bangladeshi Man Sentenced to Death in Acid Attack on Wife
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
DHAKA, Bangladesh ???????????? A Bangladeshi court sentenced a man to death by hanging for hurling acid on his 9-year-old wife, leaving her partially deaf and blind, one of her lawyers said Tuesday.
The accused, Swapan Gazi, poured a glass of acid on the girl's face and head after she refused to leave her parents' house for his, lawyer Salma Ali said.
The attack happened in 1998 at a slum in the industrial town of Tongi (search) in Gazipur (search) district, 20 miles north of the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka (search). A legal aid and human rights group run by women lawyers took up the girl's case.
The Gazipur court also ordered him to pay $900 in damages to the victim.
"This ruling will help deter others who commit such crimes," Salma Ali of the Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (search).
The accused had pleaded innocent. His lawyers plan to appeal the verdict in a higher court.
Gazi, in his twenties, forced the third grader into marrying him without her parents consent, in 1998. The girl's father, a poor rickshaw puller, refused to let her set up housekeeping with Gazi, saying she could not leave her family until she came of age.
Marriages of girls under 18 ???????????? and men under 21 ???????????? are illegal under Bangladesh's secular laws. But underage marriages are deemed valid under religious laws in the Muslim-majority country.
Most births go unregistered in Bangladesh, and poor parents often flout the law and marry off their underage children, falsifying their ages.
A month after their marriage, Gazi went to the girl's house and insisted that she come away with him. He threw acid on her when she refused. Neighbors who heard her cries caught Gazi and turned him in to police.
She received treatment in Dhaka, and later in Spain, for severe acid burns on her scalp, face and throat. She lost an eye and hearing on her left side.
Her parents left Tongi soon after the attack. Now 14, the girl is back in school, in the seventh grade, Ali said.
The trial took nearly five years to complete; Bangladeshi courts are often swamped with cases and long delays in hearings are common.
In 2002, at least 315 women and girls in Bangladesh were victims of acid attacks, usually committed by jilted lovers or angry husbands seeking revenge.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,93186,00.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Now, when I say I'm in favour of wiping out entire cultures, I do not say entire races or nations. I say "cultures". I am not in favour of killing all the people in that country. I am in favour of destroying the culture which is entrenched in that country, a culture which allows a man to marry a 9-year-old girl and then mutilate her. I am in favour of a massive multi-national military force moving in, burning every book of religion, law, and so on, and establishing (and enforcing) a fair social and legal system in which such crimes would be less likely to happen. Bring on the guns. Destroy that culture. Force them to accept a new way of life.
Would that be stepping on their right to self-determination? Yep. But that guy stepped on that young girl's rights to self-determination. My way protects the kids, at least, from a completely unjust society.
For the purposes of discussion, I'll use the singular "god", rather than having to type "god/gods" throughout.
1) There is no proof god exists.
2) There is no prove god does not exist.
3) However, I find it very unlikely that god exists. The notion has no more validity than any other flight of fancy.
4) However, once again, I have no proof god doesn't exist.
5) To me, if there is a god, then it has absolutely no right to expect any form of worship, obedience, or respect unless it is actually a decent chap. If it's bad, and we're all going to be tortured for eternity after we die, then why bother giving it the time of day? So to get anything from us, it must in the end be decent.
6) I have the idea that god, if real, must care more about our hearts/spirits than about words written on paper. In which case, such a god must judge us based not on our nominal religion but on how we behave through this life.
7) So, that gives us:
- God may or may not exist, we have no proof either way.
- If yes, it judges us based on how we behave.
- If no, well, our fellows judge us on how we behave.
8) The drawback to religion: Given point 6, people spend ridiculous amounts of time and energy on irrelevent crap, and even do such crazy things as start wars based on those silly bits of paper. If they believe in a decent god, then they should stop wasting so much effort on crap, and concentrate on trying to make the world they live in a better place. Hell, we even have the biological drive to improve the world in which our offspring will live. Whether god exists or not, nature wants such improvement.
9) Is "getting into heaven" my only reason for wanting to behave decently, as I have mentioned? No. Since there is no proof of god's existence, god is irrelevent when determining one's morality/ethics. I believe in a natural reasoning, basing my behaviour on proven reality, on cause and effect. I do to others as they do to me.
Result) In the end, what does give me? If god doesn't exist, I'm trying to get out of life without making the world a worse place. Maybe I'll leave a few decent memories. Maybe I can write or invent something which may even impriove the world, if I'm lucky. If god does exist, it's bound to examine that as criteria for my state in eternity rather than whether I read some dumb-arse book written by humans. So, I can spend my time and effort on living well and trying to improve things rather than messing around with religion.
In short, religion is a waste of time.
Remember when the USA military, news, and government made a big deal about Jessica Lynch, the army girl who was "ambushed" by the "evil Iraqis"? Well, it was all lies, of course.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html
I wonder when the movie will hit the big screen?
This is just funny. Some creationist nutters hassled Richard Dawkins once, asking idiotic questions that only the uneducated can ask, and he wrote a little essay about it all.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm
A simple question can get us started:
1) Is a man in a cage free, if he has no wish to leave that cage?
It seems to me there are two possible answers:
A) No. In which case we determine freedom based on the physical.
B) Yes. In which case freedom is in the mind.
No answers itself.
In the case of B, move forward...
However, if "yes", that gives us one more question:
2) Is the man in the cage aware of a world beyond his cage?
If the man is aware of all the world beyond his cage, and yet chooses to remain in his cage, is he:
A) Still help captive be fears and such? (which takes us back to 1)
B) Free, because he has veiwed all options and made a choice?
In the case of B, he is free.
However, if the man is not aware of the world beynd his cage, that gives rise to a third question:
3) Is ignorance bliss?
A) Ignorance of other options means slavery.
B) Ignorance of other options does not mean slavery.
Would anyone care to create further logical constructs, or answer the final two questions?
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|