More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

Bin Ladin: Bush deceived Americans
(Aljazeera.Net, 29 October 2004)
Usama bin Ladin appeared on Aljazeera television on Friday accusing US President George W. Bush of deceiving the American people. . . . In an address just days ahead of the US presidential election, bin Ladin also said the US administration resembled "corrupt" Arab governments. . . . He accused Bush of reacting slowly to the September 11 attacks, saying: "I never thought that the supreme leader would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face the terrifying events alone at the time they were in need for him." . . . Refering to next week's elections, he told Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or (President George W.) Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands ...." . . . He accused Bush of "misleading" the American people four years after the September 11 attacks. . . . Claiming responsibility for the attacks, bin Ladin said, "we decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation." . . . He added that "the reasons to repeat what happened" on 11 September 2001 remain.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 2:06 PM

 

Al-Jazeera broadcasts new bin Laden tape
(MSNBC, October 29, 2004)
Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, in a videotape broadcast Friday on Al-Jazeera television, promised a new message on "the best way to avoid another Manhattan," a clear reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. . . . U.S. officials who had seen the entire tape told NBC News that in the tape, which they said was authentic, bin Laden tells the American people that "Bush cannot protect you." They said there was no plan to raise the terrorist threat level, currently at yellow, or "elevated," because it makes no specific threat. . . . Neither the Qatar-based channel nor U.S. officials would say how it had received the tape. . . . The last authenticated contemporaneous video message from bin Laden appeared in December 2001, when he discussed a U.S. attack on a mosque. U.S. officials said all subsequent videos of bin Laden were believed to have been recorded earlier and broadcast much later. . . . The last audio message from bin Laden was on April 15, when he offered a truce to European nations if they removed their troops from the Middle East within 90 days. On Oct. 1, bin Laden’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, issued an audiotape calling on young Muslims to strike the United States and its allies.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 1:16 PM

 

Amnesty Condemns U.S. for War on Terror Torture
(Kate Kelland, Reuters, October 27, 2004)
The United States has failed to guard against torture and inhuman behavior since launching its "war on terror" after Sept. 11, 2001, Amnesty International said Wednesday in a report just days before the U.S. election. . . . It condemned Bush's response to the 2001 attacks on U.S. cities, saying it had resulted in an "iconography of torture, cruelty and degradation." . . . Amnesty's report accused Washington of stepping onto a "well-trodden path of violating basic rights in the name of national security or 'military necessity'." . . . "The war mentality the government has adopted has not been matched with a commitment to the laws of war and it has discarded fundamental human rights principles along the way," it said. . . . At best, Washington was guilty of setting conditions for torture and cruel treatment by lowering safeguards and failing to respond adequately to allegations of abuse, it said. . . . At worst, it had authorized interrogation techniques which flouted its international obligation to reject torture and ill-treatment under any circumstances. . . . Amnesty said the U.S. and the world would be "haunted by these and other images for years to come." They were "icons of a government's failure to put human rights at its heart." . . . The report -- "Human dignity denied: Torture and accountability in the 'war on terror"' -- urged Bush and Kerry to commit to opening an independent inquiry into all U.S. interrogation and detention policies. . . . "The core message of this report is that the prevention of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is primarily a matter of political will," it said. . . . Amnesty also criticized a tendency in the U.S. to gloss over aspects of war and violence -- referring to torture and degrading treatment as "stress and duress" for example -- which it said threatened to promote tolerance of them. . . . "The human rights violations which the U.S. government has been so reluctant to call torture when committed by its own agents are annually described as such by the State Department when they occur in other countries," the report said. . . . "Double standards have greatly undermined the credibility of the U.S.'s global discourse on human rights," it said.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 2:00 PM

 

A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
(Wayne Madsen, Lebanonwire.com, October 20, 2004)
According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs. . . . The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election. . . . According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. . . . London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. . . . In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United States with 500 "bunker buster" bombs. According to White House sources, the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr with the U.S. bunker busters.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military move against Iran reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative grouping in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office that engineered the invasion of Iraq. . . . Morale aboard the USS John F. Kennedy is at an all-time low, something that must be attributable to the knowledge that the ship will be involved in an extension of U.S. military actions in the Persian Gulf region. The Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat squadron was relieved of command for a reported shore leave "indiscretion" in Dubai and two months ago the Kennedy's commanding officer was relieved for cause. . . . The White House leak about the planned attack on Iran was hastened by concerns that Russian technicians present at Bushehr could be killed in an attack, thus resulting in a wider nuclear confrontation between Washington and Moscow. International Atomic Energy Agency representatives are also present at the Bushehr facility. In addition, an immediate Iranian Shahab ballistic missile attack against Israel would also further destabilize the Middle East. The White House leaks about the pre-emptive strike may have been prompted by warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that an attack on Iran will escalate out of control. Intelligence circles report that both intelligence agencies are in open revolt against the Bush White House. . . . White House sources also claimed they are "terrified" that Bush wants to start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:17 PM

 

Why is war-torn Iraq giving $190,000 to Toys R Us?
(Naomi Klein, The Guardian, October 16, 2004)
Next week, something will happen that will unmask the upside-down morality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. On October 21, Iraq will pay $200m in war reparations to some of the richest countries and corporations in the world. . . . If that seems backwards, it's because it is. Iraqis have never been awarded reparations for any of the crimes they suffered under Saddam, or the brutal sanctions regime that claimed the lives of at least half a million people, or the US-led invasion, which the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, recently called "illegal". Instead, Iraqis are still being forced to pay reparations for crimes committed by their former dictator. . . . Quite apart from its crushing $125bn sovereign debt, Iraq has paid $18.8bn in reparations stemming from Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion and occupation of Kuwait. . . . $37m have gone to Britain and $32.8m have gone to the United States. That's right: in the past 18 months, Iraq's occupiers have collected $69.8m in reparation payments from the desperate people they have been occupying. But it gets worse: the vast majority of those payments, 78%, have gone to multinational corporations, according to statistics on the UNCC website. . . . of the total amount the UNCC has awarded in Gulf war reparations, $21.5bn has gone to the oil industry alone. . . . Here is a small sample of who has been getting "reparation" awards from Iraq: Halliburton ($18m), Bechtel ($7m), Mobil ($2.3m), Shell ($1.6m), Nestlé ($2.6m), Pepsi ($3.8m), Philip Morris ($1.3m), Sheraton ($11m), Kentucky Fried Chicken ($321,000) and Toys R Us ($189,449). In the vast majority of cases, these corporations did not claim that Saddam's forces damaged their property in Kuwait - only that they "lost profits" or, in the case of American Express, experienced a "decline in business" because of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. One of the biggest winners has been Texaco, which was awarded $505m in 1999. According to a UNCC spokesperson, only 12% of that reparation award has been paid, which means hundreds of millions more will have to come out of the coffers of post-Saddam Iraq. . . . The fact that Iraqis have been paying reparations to their occupiers is all the more shocking in the context of how little these countries have actually spent on aid in Iraq. Despite the $18.4bn of US tax dollars allocated for Iraq's reconstruction, the Washington Post estimates that only $29m has been spent on water, sanitation, health, roads, bridges, and public safety combined. And in July (the latest figure available), the Department of Defence estimated that only $4m had been spent compensating Iraqis who had been injured, or who lost family members or property as a direct result of the occupation - a fraction of what the US has collected from Iraq in reparations since its occupation began. . . . With all the talk of forgiving Iraq's debts, the country is actually being pushed deeper into the hole, forced to borrow money from the IMF, and to accept all of the conditions and restrictions that come along with those loans. The UNCC, meanwhile, continues to assess claims and make new awards: $377m worth of new claims were awarded last month alone.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 12:02 PM

 

Hans Blix: "Iraq War Stimulated Terrorism"
(Patrick McLoughlin, Reuters, 13 October 2004)
Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq had failed tragically in its aim of making the world a safer place and succeeded only in stimulating terrorism. . . . Blix, in implicit criticism of the main protagonists U.S. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, said on Wednesday the action had also failed to deter any ambitions on the part of Iran or North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. . . . "The acknowledged gain of the war was that a treacherous and murderous dictator (Saddam Hussein) was removed, but the rest has been tragedy and failure," he told Reuters in an interview. . . . Many critics of the invasion argue it opened Iraq to Islamist militants involved in an insurrection against coalition forces, while distracting attention from a campaign against the al-Qaeda group blamed for September, 2001 attacks on the United States. . . . "Is the world safer? No. It's not safer in Iraq," he said in his native Stockholm. "If North Korea and Iran are contemplating going for weapons of mass destruction, then it hasn't stopped them. It has not solved the Middle East conflict." . . . Blix suggested Washington and London had lost perspective in focusing on Saddam who, it has since emerged, was not involved in developing nuclear arms. . . . "Of course they were concerned with North Korea and Iran. But...they focused a great deal of their efforts on Iraq while other things were left simmering." . . . Blix, who retired from the U.N. last year and now chairs a Swedish-sponsored Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, also cast doubt on the Iraqi government's comments on Tuesday that U.N. weapons inspectors were welcome to return. . . . "The Iraqi government would need to offer guarantees of safety," said the 75-year-old former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who led the U.N. inspections team until 2003. "But to go to sites which satellites have already found to be empty is perhaps not meaningful." . . . Iraqi Science and Technology Minister Rashad Omar issued the invitation after an IAEA report on Monday said neither Baghdad nor Washington appeared to have noticed the disappearance of nuclear equipment and materials once closely monitored by IAEA.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 10:36 AM

 

Bush envoy making millions in Iraq war profits
(Naomi Klein, The Guardian, October 13, 2004)
President Bush's special envoy, James Baker, who has been trying to persuade the world to forgive Iraq's crushing debts, is simultaneously working for a commercial concern that is trying to recover money from Iraq, according to confidential documents. . . . Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to collect $27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest creditors, by using high-level political influence. . . . One international lawyer described the consortium's scheme as "influence peddling of the crassest kind". . . . Jerome Levinson, an expert on political and corporate ethics at American University in Washington, told the Guardian: "The consortium is saying to the Kuwaiti government, 'Through us you have the only chance to realize a substantial part of the debt. Why? Because of who we are and who we know'." . . . When George Bush appointed Mr Baker, a former secretary of state, as his unpaid envoy on December 5 2003, he called Mr Baker's job "a noble mission". But Mr Baker is also a senior counsellor and an equity partner with a reported $180m stake in the merchant bank and defence contractor the Carlyle Group. . . . In a letter dated August 6 2004, the consortium informs Kuwait's foreign ministry that the country's unpaid debts from Iraq "are in imminent jeopardy". . . . World opinion is turning in favor of debt forgiveness, another letter warns, as evidenced by "President Bush's appointment of former secretary of state James Baker as his envoy to negotiate Iraqi debt relief." . . . The consortium's proposal spells out the threat: not only is Kuwait unlikely to see any of its $30bn from Iraq in sovereign debt, but the $27bn in war reparations that Iraq owes to Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion "may well be a casualty of this US [debt relief] effort". . . . In the face of this threat, the consortium offers its services. Its roster of former high-level US and European politicians have "personal rapport with the stakeholders in the anticipated negotiations" and are able to "reach key decision-makers in the UN and in key capitals". . . . Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, said this meant that Mr Baker was in a "classic conflict of interest". . . . "Baker is on two sides of this transaction: he is supposed to be representing the interests of the US, but he is also a senior counsellor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq." . . . She added: "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government." . . . The main proposal would transfer ownership of $57bn in unpaid Iraqi debts. The debts would be assigned to a foundation created and controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle Group, the Albright Group (headed by another former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright) and several other well-connected firms. . . . Under the deal, Kuwait would also give the consortium $2bn to invest in a private equity fund devised by the consortium, with half of that going to Carlyle. . . . The consortium would then use its personal connections to persuade world leaders that Iraq must "maximize" its repa ration payments to Kuwait. The more the consortium gets Iraq to pay over a period, the more Kuwait collects, with the consortium taking a 5% commission or more. . . . The goal of maximizing Iraq's debt payments directly contradicts the stated US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq's debt burden. . . . It was on January 21 2004, that Mr Baker's dual lives converged. That morning Mr Baker flew to Kuwait as Mr Bush's debt envoy. He met Kuwait's prime minister, its foreign minister and several other top officials with the stated goal of asking them to forgive Iraq's debts. . . . Mr Baker's colleagues in the consortium chose that same day to hand-deliver their full proposal to the foreign minister, Mohammad Sabah al-Salem al-Sabah, the same man Mr Baker was meeting. . . . A covering letter was signed by Ms Albright; David Huebner, chairman of the Coudert Brothers law firm (another consortium member); and Shahameen Sheikh, chair and CEO of International Strategy Group, a company created by the consortium for the purposes of this deal. . . . Shahameen Sheikh, who made the delivery, said it was a coincidence. "It had nothing to do with Mr Baker's visit ... I was in the region so I thought I would stop over on the way to Europe and deliver the proposal." . . . The proposal "takes into account the new dynamics that have developed in the region," states the Albright letter - dynamics that include "Secretary Baker's negotiations" on debt relief. . . . If Kuwait accepts the consortium's offer, it states, "we will distinguish Kuwait's claims - legally and morally - from the sovereign debt for which the United States is now seeking forgiveness." . . . Iraq is the most heavily indebted country in the world. "This debt endangers Iraq's long-term prospects for political health and economic prosperity," President Bush said when he appointed Mr Baker last December. . . . At the time, critics expressed concern about whether Mr Baker was an appropriate choice. But the White House brushed them off. Mr Bush assured reporters: "Jim Baker is a man of high integrity. We're fortunate he decided to take time out of what is an active life to step forward and serve America." . . . But the proposed deal with Kuwait is so large that it is hard to see how Mr Baker could be prevented from benefiting: Carlyle stands to land a $1bn investment, which is 10% of the firm's total equity funds. . . . And under the proposal, the firm would be benefiting from that investment for at least 12 years. . . . Ms Clark said: "Even if Baker is somehow being screened from profiting from this deal, Carlyle is using Baker's government position to benefit themselves."

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 10:24 AM

 

The Triumph of Evil in America
(David R. Hoffman, Pravda, 09/22/2004)
Why are the polls regarding the presidential election so close? Logic would seem to dictate that Bush's character, dishonesty and hypocrisy make him unfit to be the leader of arguably the most powerful nation on earth. . . . This question can be answered by looking at the third, and perhaps most effective, tactic of fascism, and one the Bush dictatorship has consistently exploited: Hitler's hypothesis that "[t]he driving force of the most important changes in the world have been found less in scientific knowledge animating the masses but rather in a fanaticism dominating them and in a hysteria which drives them forward." Stated another way, emotion is more powerful than logic in motivating the masses, and appeals to human nature's basest instincts are the most powerful motivators of all. . . . Bush has used America's perfect combination of anger, bellicosity, fear and hatred, fueled by the September 11th attacks, to blind Americans to the depths of his evil. He and those in his dictatorship are some of the most depraved human beings on the face of the earth, and they may, either directly or indirectly, be the biggest threat to world peace and stability since Adolf Hitler. . . . Edmund Burke is quoted as saying, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." Evil has triumphed in America, and if it continues on its apocalyptic course, soon there will be nothing that good people can do.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 2:18 PM

 

US veto in support of Israeli terror
(Palestine Chronicle, October 6, 2004)
A United States veto against an Arab-backed draft UN Security Council resolution, demanding Israel to immediately end its running Gaza onslaught, drew flack Tuesday, October 5, for failing the Palestinian people once again. . . . "We regret that such a balanced and credible text that was merely calling upon Israel to end its military operation which causes so many human losses and so much damage has not gained unanimous endorsement by the council," Algerian Ambassador Abdalla Baali told Reuters news agency. . . . Baali, whose country is the council’s only Arab member, said the 15-nation body appeared to be effective only when it chastised Arab nations. . . . He recalled in this respect the recent US-drafted resolution demanding Syrian to pull out troops from Lebanon, though opposed by even Beirut. . . . "The Security Council has once again failed the Palestinian people," lamented the Algerian diplomat who tabled the draft on behalf of the UN Arab Group. . . . The draft resolution would have demanded "the immediate cessation of all military operations in the area of northern Gaza" and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. . . . A total of 11 nations voted in favor of Tuesday’s measure while Britain, Germany and Romania abstained. . . . The draft was killed stone dead by US Ambassador John Danforth who exercised his veto power. . . . Palestinian UN observer Nasser Al-Kidwa said it was a "sad day" for the Arab world. . . . He regretted that some council members spoke only of Israeli deaths when in fact the Israeli army was trying to destroy "the entire Palestinian people -- the destruction of its life and its future." . . . "Israel has an official army committing war crimes and acts of state terrorism," said the diplomat. . . . Palestinian Minister of Negotiations Saeb Erekat chided Washington over its never ending bias towards Israel, accusing it of treating Arabs with scorn and ridicule. . . . "The current action undertaken by the Israeli defense forces is causing large numbers of civilian deaths and injuries in Gaza." . . . The veto was the 80th by the United States in 59 years, including 29 related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The last was on March 25 against Israel's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader 67-year-old wheelchair-bound Ahmed Yassin. . . . Hours after the US veto, Israeli tanks shelled the northern Gaza Strip city of Beit Lahya, killing at least three Palestinians and injuring 12 others, including eight children. . . . A father and son were killed when a tank shell exploded in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, the sources said. . . . Earlier 17-year-old Attalah Qahman was killed and 10 other Palestinians, including eight children, were injured by Israeli tank fire in the nearby town of Beit Lahya, according to hospital sources. . . . A Palestinian teenager was killed by Israeli gunfire also Wednesday, October 6, in the northern West Bank town of Tulkarem. . . . The bloody Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip’s Jabaliya refugee camp entered Wednesday, its eighth day, claiming the lives of some 85 Palestinians.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 11:44 AM

 

Afghan Elections: US Solution to a US Problem
(Jim Ingalls and Sonali Kolhatkar, October 6th, 2004)
Afghanistan will undergo the first presidential elections in the country's history on October 9, 2004. As if surprised by the fact that Afghans could want a voice in their country's future, George W. Bush touted the fact that over 10 million Afghans registered to vote as "a resounding endorsement for democracy." The real surprise is that, despite rampant anti-election violence and threats of violence, so many people were brave enough to register. This certainly indicates that Afghans are desperate for a chance to control their own lives. But, even though many will risk their lives to vote, the majority of Afghans played no part in decisionmaking regarding the schedule and structure of the elections, and will not benefit from the results. This election process was imposed by the United States to solve "Afghan problems" as defined by the United States. In reality, the problems facing Afghans are the results of decisions made in Washington in the 1980s and 1990s. . . . Violence against election workers and politicians is on the rise...Hardly anyone expects the voting to meet international standards." A commonly cited statistic indicating voter fraud is the estimated 10% over-registration countrywide. According to Business Week, "some areas have registration rates as high as 140% of projected eligible voters." This is definitely disturbing, and is a blow to Bush's own election propaganda, since he uses the "over 10 million registered" figure in campaign speeches as an example of the success of his foreign policy. . . . In reality the Afghan presidential elections will be a test not of "Afghan democracy," but of Bush's ability to impose his political order on a country. . . . Women are Pawns in Election . . . The Bush administration constantly calls attention to the fact that 4 million of those who registered to vote in Afghanistan were women. . . . the Afghan political environment, controlled by US-backed warlords and a US-backed president, remains extremely hostile to women. Women comprise 60% of the population but only 43% of registered voters. Additionally, sharp differences in literacy between men and women put women at a huge disadvantage. Only 10% of Afghan women can read and write. While school attendance of girls has increased to about 50% nationwide, it is too early to affect women voters. Furthermore, under Karzai's presidency, married women were banned from attending schools in late 2003. . . . only one dollar out of every $5,000 ($112,500 out of $650 million) of US financial aid sent to Afghanistan in 2002 was actually given to women's organizations. In 2003, according to Ritu Sharma, Executive Director of the Women's Edge Coalition, that amount was reduced to $90,000. At the same time, women have increasingly been the targets of violence. New studies by groups like Amnesty International reveal that sexual violence has surged since the fall of the Taliban, and there has been a sharp rise in incidents of women's self-immolation in Western Afghanistan. Amnesty International has documented an escalation in the number of girls and young women abducted and forced into marriage, with collusion from the state (those who resist are often imprisoned). . . . US policy has empowered extreme fundamentalists who have further extended women's oppression in a traditionally ultra-conservative society. In a public opinion survey conducted in Afghanistan this July by the Asia Foundation, 72% of respondents said that men should advise women on their voting choices and 87% of all Afghans interviewed said women would need their husband's permission to vote. On International Women's Day this year, Hamid Karzai only encouraged such attitudes. He implored men to allow their wives and sisters to register to vote, assuring them, "later, you can control who she votes for, but please, let her go [to register]." Most of the candidates running against Karzai have mentioned rights for women in some form or another as part of their campaign platforms. While this is obligatory in post-Taliban Afghanistan, it is little more than lip service. Latif Pedram, a candidate who went slightly further than others by suggesting that polygamy was unfair to women, was barred from the election and investigated by the Justice Ministry for "blasphemy". . . . "warlords and local commanders are the main sources of instability in the country." While most women may need the permission of their husbands to vote, their choices will be extremely limited, since most Afghans are being intimidated by US backed warlords into voting for them. According to Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, "Many voters in rural areas say the [warlord] militias have already told them how to vote, and that they're afraid of disobeying them." . . . To preserve control, or at least validate the propaganda that Afghanistan is a victory for the US "war on terror," the Bush administration is actively lobbying Karzai's opponents to not run. According to the Los Angeles Times, thirteen of the 18 candidates, including Qanooni, have complained about interference from Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador. Khalilzad has reportedly "requested" candidates to withdraw from the race, attempting to bribe them with a position in the cabinet. . . . Post election Afghanistan will look very much as it does today, if not worse. If Karzai wins with the backing of some or all Northern Alliance factions, their leaders will be awarded high-level positions, further entrenching and legitimizing them. If Karzai wins without enough support from his opponent warlords, the losing parties may attack the central government, reverting the country to civil war. If Karzai loses, the warlords might form an alliance government, a horrible thought to contemplate considering the 1992-1996 "coalition government" of many of the same factions.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 1:06 PM

 

A Shiite-Sunni Islamist 'high command' may be forming
(Patrick Seale, The Daily Star, October 04, 2004)
In the eyes of Arab and Islamic militants, the war against American forces in Iraq and Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation are increasingly seen as one and the same battle. In the absence of any prospect for peace on either battlefield, alliances are being formed and command structures established which suggest that the struggle is entering a new and more lethal phase. . . . Western intelligence sources report that a new high command is emerging made up of Hizbullah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood (represented in the occupied Palestinian territories by Islamic Jihad); and, last but not least, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The striking features of this alliance are that it bridges the Sunni-Shiite divide and unites Arab nationalists and Islamists in a common cause. As a member of one of these groups put it to me: "There is today no difference between resistance and jihad." . . . As a result, Palestinian moderates have been silenced while the Palestinian Authority has virtually collapsed under Israeli blows and the bitter frustration of a population under siege. The initiative has passed to militants who argue that there is no alternative but armed struggle. The huge sacrifices the Palestinians have endured in their four-year intifada are, paradoxically, seen as arguments for continuing the battle, however long it takes. . . . Second, in Iraq, American attempts to crush the insurgency by force (there are reports the U.S. is planning an all-out campaign before the end of the year to "clean out" Fallujah and other centers of resistance in preparation for elections in January) are rallying anti-American forces in many parts of the world. For Arab and Islamic militants, Iraq has become a fighting issue and a mobilizing cause as intense as the Palestinian cause itself. . . . the militants argue that the intifada and the suicide bombings have hit Israel hard. Occupation and repression have brutalized Israeli society, domestic investment has dwindled, unemployment and crime have soared, tourism has plummeted, young people are leaving and world opinion has turned hostile. Israel, they argue, is more isolated than ever and would not survive were it not for American backing. The strategy must therefore be to hit American as well as Israeli targets even harder, so as to bring home the price the U.S. has to pay for its one-sided policies and persuade Israelis to return to sanity. This is the dominant trend in the region today. . . . Mounting casualties and the soaring cost of the Iraq war, together with fear of terrorist attack, has empowered American critics to speak out against what they see as the consequence of the capture of America's foreign and security policy by right-wing friends of Israel. . . . Such views are to be heard among members of America's more traditional foreign policy establishment and among senior officers. The failure to recognize the threat from the neocons is being much lamented, as is the failure to block their rise to prominence over the past decade. . . . Dissent against the policies of the Bush administration is widespread, but it may not be strong or organized enough to put the Democratic challenger John Kerry in the White House.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 5:38 PM

 

The connection between Jabaliya and Samarra
(Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, October 5, 2004)
At first glance the violence in Jabaliya in Palestine and in the Iraqi town of Samarra appear to be unconnected. The Israeli army's incursion into northern Gaza looks like just another deadeningly familiar episode in the unending conflict between Palestinians and Jews.
The US-led weekend assault on insurgents in mainly Sunni Samarra seems to be broadly typical of the continuing turmoil in Iraq. . . . But peer beneath the headlines and it is clear that these ostensibly separate events are far from routine, and are closely linked in many ways, directly and indirectly. . . . In both Jabaliya and Samarra modern armies with state-of-the-art weaponry and unanswerable air power attacked residential areas, causing numerous civilian casualties. . . . In both cases the degree of lethal force used was grossly disproportionate to the assessed threat. Three US and two Iraqi battalions - about 5,000 men - were sent against 200-300 insurgents in Samarra. . . . In Gaza, in order to deter the sort of vicious home-made Hamas rocket attacks that killed two children in Sderot last week, the Israelis have deployed an estimated 2,000 soldiers and 200 tanks, and are threatening an escalation. . . . In both places, enormous damage has been done to homes and infrastructure, including basic services. The Palestinians are appealing for international assistance for what they say is a developing "humanitarian tragedy". . . . The Iraqi Red Crescent, reporting that 500 families were forced to flee Samarra, said the Iraqi interim government had asked for emergency aid. . . . Present horrors apart, Jabaliya and Samarra both offer disturbing portents, and both have considerable political significance. . . . In Gaza, Israel seems intent on establishing a buffer zone on Palestinian land, the equivalent of the wall with which it is enclosing the West Bank and which, despite official denials, is prospectively just as permanent. . . . The US attack on Samarra, a relatively easy target, appears to be a dress rehearsal for coming attempts to seize control of better defended insurgent strongholds such as Falluja, Sadr City and Ramadi. . . . And thus are the personal political fortunes of Mr Sharon and the US president, George Bush, bound up to a critical degree in what happens in places such as Jabaliya and Samarra. . . . Both men are fighting to convince sceptical electorates, and their own parties, that they know what they are doing. When elected, Mr Sharon promised to achieve security for Israelis. Mr Bush declared victory in Iraq more than a year ago. . . . Each man has a credibility gap. To fill it, it seems ongoing civilian carnage is not too high a price to pay. . . . Jabaliya and Samarra may also be seen as linked symbols of a bigger problem. In Iraq and Palestine, two allied occupying powers - and democracies, at that - act with questionable or no legal authority and with evident impunity. . . . the bald fact remains: the US and Israel behave they way they do because they can; there is simply nobody to stop them. . . . Jabaliya and Samarra, officially, are distinct theatres in the wider "war on terror". . . . But far from being unconnected, to many in the Arab world they look dismayingly like integral parts of a western crusade against both Muslims and Islam in general, to which violent resistance is the only possible response.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 5:04 PM