Immunität für US-Soldaten
Keine gerichtlichen Sanktionen für im Irak
begangene Kriegsverbrechen
Rainer Rupp
Die US-amerikanischen Kriegsverbrecher hatten sich wegen ihrer
»unfairen Behandlung« beschwert. Schließlich war eine Gleichbehandlung
mit ihren britischen Kollegen das Mindeste, was die
drei US-Soldaten, die ihren irakischen Gefangenen mit Fußtritten
immer wieder schwere Verletzungen zugefügt hatten, erwarten
durften. Gegen die zwei britischen Soldaten, die im Süden Iraks
junge irakische Gefangene so lange gefoltert und getreten hatten,
bis einer von ihnen tot war, waren bereits nach kurzer Zeit die
Untersuchungen stillschweigend eingestellt worden (jW berichtete).
Als »unfair« dürften die drei US-Soldaten auch empfunden haben,
daß ausgerechnet sie wegen der Tritte ohne Todesfolge vor ein
US-Kriegsgericht gestellt werden sollten, wo doch ihre Kameraden
straflos irakische Zivilisten bei Razzien erschießen und ganze
Familien auslöschen, ohne daß darüber auch nur ein Bericht
geschrieben wird, geschweige denn eine Untersuchung folgen würde.
Pech für die drei US-Soldaten war, daß ein anständiger Offizier
die Sache meldete und darauf die US-Medien den Vorfall als Beweis
für die US-Militärdisziplin im Irak hochspielten. Zusätzliche
Medienattraktivität bekam die Geschichte dadurch, daß sich mit der
35 Jahre alten Lisa Marie Girman, Master Sergeant in der US-Army,
eine Frau als Anführerin der uniformierten Folterbande entpuppte.
So hatte Girman ihre Untergeordneten u. a. immer wieder dazu aufgefordert,
den erschöpft am Boden liegenden irakischen Gefangenen
die Beine auseinanderzuziehen, um ihnen in die Hoden zu treten.
Eine Kriegsgerichtsverhandlung bleibt den drei Folterknechten nun
dennoch erspart. Statt dessen gab es ein Disziplinarverfahren, in
dem der ihnen vorgesetzte US-General Ennis Whitehead III alle drei
zur Zahlung von zwei Monatsgehältern verurteilte und Master Sergeant
Girman zum einfachen Sergeanten degradierte.
Derweil häufen sich die Nachrichten über von US-Besatzern willk
ürlich ermordete irakische Zivilisten. So wurden am vergangenen
Samstag erneut vier Menschen getötet, als sie in der Nähe von
Tikrit mit ihrem Auto einen US-Konvoi überholen wollte. Aus dem
von Kugeln durchsiebten Fahrzeug konnten zwei Männer und eine
Mutter mit ihrem neun Jahre alten Kind nur noch tot geborgen
werden. Eine Untersuchung wird es auch diesmal nicht geben. Über
die anderen Tötungen durch US-Soldaten - allein nach der Festnahme
Saddam Husseins wurden bei verschiedenen Protesten insgesamt 40
unbewaffnete irakische Demonstranten erschossen - werden ebenfalls
keine offiziellen Berichte angefertigt, geschweige denn dokumentarische
Belege, die eine spätere Identifizierung und Strafverfolgung
ermöglichen würden. Daß dies ohnehin nicht gewollt
ist, macht der Text des Dekrets Nummer 17 der »Provisorischen
Autorität der Koalition«, also der US-geführten Besatzungsverwaltung,
deutlich, welches die Koalitionstruppen über das Recht
stellt. In Absatz 2 dieses Dokuments heißt es: »Das gesamte
Personal der Koalition untersteht ausschließlich der Gerichtsbarkeit
des Heimatstaates und genießt volle Immunität vor der lokalen
(irakischen) strafrechtlichen und zivilen Gerichtsbarkeit sowie
vor jeglicher Form von Festnahme und Haft.«
junge Welt vom 07.01.2004
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/01-07/004.php
Buschs Umfeld fordert Krieg
von Dschugan Rosenberg - 02.01.2004 10:31
Wie D. Rennie für news.telegraph.co.uk zum Jahreswechsel berichtet,
erhielt Busch ein öffentliches Manifest aus seinem neokonservativen
Umfeld. In ihm werden ein Regierungswechsel im Iran und Syrien, eine
Seeblockade und vorbeugender Angriff gegen Nordkorea sowie Maßnahmen
gegen Frankreich gefordert.
Das Manifest mit dem Namen "Handbuch für den Sieg" im Krieg gegen
den Terrorismus fordert, Saudi-Arabien und Frankreich nicht mehr als
Verbündete, sondern als Rivalen und potentielle Feinde zu behandeln.
Im Kampf für die Wiederwahl von Präsident Busch soll das Manifest
den Irak-Nachkriegsverdruss aufbrechen und die gegnerische Kampagne
im State-Department und der Militärspitze zurückschlagen.
Das Handbuch fordert auch Maßnahmen gegen Frankreich und seine
Träume, die Macht der USA aufzuweichen. Wir sollten die Europäischen
Regierungen zwingen, sich zwischen Paris und Washington zu entscheiden,
so ein Statement.
- Link
- http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/31/
wcons31.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/31/ixnewstop.html
Übersetzung
Translationx 02.01.2004 16:21
Falken erklären Bush, wie man den Krieg gegen den Terror gewinnt
Von David Rennie / Washington
(31.12.2003)
Die Falken Washingtons haben gestern Präsident George W Bush ein allgemeines
Manifest zugestellt un verlangen darin Regimeänderungen in
Syrien und im Iran und eine militärische Blockade von Nordkorea nach
einer der mit Kuba vergleichbaren. unterstützt, durch die Planung
eines Präventivschlags gegen Nordkoreas nuklearen Standorte plant.
Das Manifest, vorgestellt als "Handbuch für den Sieg" im Krieg gegen
den Terror, fordert auch Saudi-Arabien und Frankreich nicht als
Verbündete sondern als Rivalen oder sogar als Feinde zu behandeln.
Das Manifest ist in einem neuen Buch von Richard Perle, einem
Pentagonberater und "ein intellektueller Guru" der ultra neokonservativen
Bewegung und David Frum, einem ehemaligen Bush
Redenschreiber, enthalten. Sie warnen vor einem Zögern des
"Siegeswillen" in Washington.
Im Kampf um das Gehör des Präsidenten, stellt das Manifest einen
Versuch der Falken dar, von Post-Irak-Flaute auszuscheren anzukn
üpfen, an das, [" as a campaign of hostile leaking by their
foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the
military top brass."]
Ihre Publikation, "Ende des Übels": Wie man den Krieg gegen den
Terror gewinnt, fallen zeitlich mit der neuesten Breitseite von,
Colin Powell, der Staatssekretär und Feind Nr. 1 der Falken zusammen.
Herrn Powell, der sich zur Zeit in seinem Urlaub, von einer
Prostatakrebs-Operation erholt, rief ein Gruppe von Journalisten
an sein Krankenbett um die "viel versprechenden" Zeichen einer
"neuen Haltung" im Iran zu begrüßen und verband damit einen Anruf,
die Vereinigten Staaten sollen sich der Aussicht des Dialogs mit
den Teheraner Obrigkeiten gegenüber offen halten.
Solche Aussagen sind ein Gräuel für die Falken Herrn Perle und
Herrn Frum, sie drängen Washington dazu, die Mullas zu meiden
und für ihren Umsturtz zu arbeiten im Einklang mit den iranischen
Dissidenten.
Vermutlich, wird Ihr Trieb mindestens durch Falken innerhalb der
Regierung geteilt, deren Doppelbasis aus der Zivilen Führungsebene
des Petagons und dem Büro des Vizepräsidenten, Dick Cheney besteht.
Solche Beamte setzten die Invasionen von Afghanistan und Irak durch,
wurden aber in Ihremn Nachkriegsvisionen zurückgeworfen, die sich
von einer schnellen Errichtung eines Freimarktes im Irak zu Kompromissen
und einer Übergabe der Autoritäten nicht vor folgendem Juni
gewandelt hat.
Das Buch verlangt, daß alle mögliche Gespräche mit Nordkorea das
komplette und sofortige Aufgeben seines Kernprogramms fordern.
Da Nordkorea vermutlich solche Forderungen ablehnen wird, drängt
das Buch auf eine militärische Blockade nach kubanischem Muster und
auf offenkundige Vorbereitungen für einen Krieg, einschließlich den
schnellen Rückzug der US Streitkräfte von der Zwischen-Koreanischen
Grenze, damit sie aus der Schussweite der Nordkoreanischen
Artillerie gelangen.
Solche Schritte, hoffen die Autoren des Buches, werden China dazu
bewegen, seinen Verbündeten, Kim Jong-il zu verdrängen und ein
gescheiteres Regime in Nordkorea zu etablieren.
Die autoritäre Führung von Führer Syriens, Bashar Assad, sollte auch
beendet werden, angeregt wird ein Schließen der Öl-Versorgung von
der Iraker Seite, Blockieren der Waffenlieferungen aus dem Iran und
ein Überfall in Syrien, um Terroristen zu jagen.
Die Autoren fordern Herrn Bush auf "Sagen Sie die Wahrheit über
Saudi-Arabien". Wohlhabende Saudis, unter anderem die königlichen
Prinzen, unterstützten Al-Qa'eda, mit finanziellen Mitteln.
Die saudische Regierung unterstützte "Terror-verdorbene islamische
Organisationen" als Teil einer größeren Kampagne, zur "Ausbreitung
des extremer islamischer Werte in der moslemischen Welt, in Europa
und in Nordamerika".
Das Buch verlangt hartes Vorgehen gegen Frankreich und seine Träume
vom Aufheben der US - Stärke. "wir sollten europäische Regierungen
dazu zwingen, sich zwischen Paris und Washington zu entscheiden".
Die Unabhängigkeit Großbritanniens von Europa sollte erhalten
bleiben, möglicherweise damit dass britischen Waffen einen Zugang
zu den amerikanischen Verteidigungmärkten erhalten.
http://de.indymedia.org/2004/01/71098.shtml
US troops arrest 42 around Baghdad
US forces in Iraq have arrested 42 people in raids targeting
resistance fighters around Baghdad, the military said on
Tuesday.
The Third Armoured Cavalry Regiment (3rd ACR) raided what it
called "suspected foreign fighter" camps along the Syrian border
and captured four people, one of whom was on a wanted list.
The military said it had arrested a total of 20 people around the
western al-Anbar province, home to the flashpoint towns of Ramadi
and Falluja.
The 4th Infantry Division arrested 22 people in the area north of
the capital, including Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.
US troops have been increasingly facing resistance in and around
Baghdad, from what they claim is a combination of Saddam supporters
and foreign fighters.
Review of contracts
The arrests come as the US signalled on the diplomatic front that it
is willing to review its policy barring companies from countries that
opposed the war on Iraq from bidding for rebuilding contracts.
Bidding is likely to open this week for the US-funded contracts.
A Pentagon ruling last month excluded firms from nations that did
not support the war, a decision that riled traditional allies such
as France and Germany, which opposed America's decision to invade
Iraq.
The Pentagon told prospective bidders via a government procurement
website on Monday (www.fedbizopps.gov) that a list of eligible
countries for projects funded by $18.6 billion in US funds was
being reviewed.
"This list is under further consideration, however, and may be
revised," said the document issued by the Office of the Secretary
of Defence, which said the original list of 63 countries remained
valid.
Diplomatic sources in Washington said they had noticed signs of
a softening by the US government over who could apply for prime
contracts, following a mission by ex-US secretary of state James
Baker to Europe last month to seek forgiveness of Iraq's crippling
debt.
Agencies
Tuesday 06 January 2004 9:01 AM GMT
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3D97ABA9-8394-407FAD
84-557881034BB3.htm
Two Frenchmen shot dead in Iraq
Two French nationals have been killed and a third wounded in a
drive-by shooting in the Iraqi town of Falluja.
French foreign ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said on Tuesday
that the French nationals were in Iraq working for US companies,
tasked with rebuilding infrastructure in and around Baghdad.
They were driving in a convoy near Falluja, west of the Iraqi
capital, when their car broke down, diplomats said.
The occupants of a passing vehicle shot at the French men, killing
two and wounding the third.
No further details were immediately available on the timing or
circumstances of their deaths.
Foreign citizens attacked
"These tragic events lead us to recall, as posted on the foreign
ministry's web site, that it is urgent that all French nationals
currently in Iraq make themselves known to our consular authorities
and to the French interests section," Ladsous said.
The three French nationals in Falluja were not registered with
French consular services in Iraq, he noted.
Several foreign citizens have been killed in attacks by resistance
fighters opposed to US-led occupying forces that deposed former
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Two Japanese diplomats and seven Spanish intelligence officers were
shot and killed in Iraq in separate attacks in November.
AFP
Tuesday 06 January 2004 1:08 PM GMT
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D2977D8B-15CA-4636-
8743-198CB34BDCCC.htm
US soldiers discharged for abusing Iraq POWs
The US Army has discharged three soldiers for abusing Iraqi prisoners
of war.
The three were found guilty of beating and harassing prisoners
at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq during the US-led war against the
country, said spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Harris on Monday.
The three soldiers had been sent back to the United States after
months of investigations led to their administrative discharge by
Brigadier-General Ennis Whitehead III, the acting commander of the
143rd Transportation Command, said Harris.
The soldiers were under non-judicial punishment. This meant a jury
did not try the case and the defendants did not have to serve time
in jail, said Harris. The army had previously said the three faced
up to 25 years in jail if convicted of all charges.
The three were named as Master Sergeant Lisa Girman, 35, Staff
Sergeant Scott McKenzie, 38 and Specialist Timothy Canjar, 21.
"The charges stem from an incident last year when prisoners were
being moved. Master Sergeant Girman, who was the senior person and
in charge, was charged with physical abuse of Iraqi detainees,"
said Harris.
Beatings
Girman was found guilty of knocking a prisoner to the ground,
repeatedly kicking him in the groin, abdomen and head and
encouraging her subordinate soldiers to do the same, said army
spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Gregory Julian in Atlanta.
McKenzie was found guilty of dragging a prisoner by his armpits
across the ground, holding his legs apart and encouraging others
to kick him in the groin. Other US soldiers kicked him in the
abdomen and head, threw the prisoner to the ground and stepped
on his injured arm.
Canjar was found guilty of maltreatment of a prisoner by holding
his legs apart while others kicked him in the groin and violently
twisting his already injured arm.
McKenzie and Canjar also were convicted of making false sworn
statements to army investigators.
The soldiers claimed they acted in self-defence.
Not unprecedented
These are not the first charges of occupation troops abusing Iraqi
POWs.
In July, two British soldiers were ordered out of Iraq after
allegations that prisoners of war were beaten up, according
to London's Defence Ministry.
Military police had also questioned a British soldier in custody
after photographs emerged showing troops allegedly torturing
Iraqi POWs.
One photograph showed an Iraqi POW gagged and bound, hanging
in netting from a fork-lift truck driven by a British soldier.
In June, the London-based human rights watchdog Amnesty
International, said it had evidence that the US violated
international law by subjecting Iraqi prisoners to "cruel,
inhuman or degrading" conditions.
Reuters + Aljazeera
Monday 05 January 2004 10:16 PM GMT
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C40CE32B-FA8C-419BA
1AC-6BE956CEEB47.htm
Al-Sahaf Talks about the US-UK War on Iraq
Jassem Obaid of Abu Dhabi TV interviewing Muhammed Sa'id Al-Sahaf,
the former Iraqi Minister of Information
Fifth Interview: April 6-9, 2003, The Last Four Days of the War
A Summary Translation By Dr. Hassan El-Najjar
Al-Jazeerah, 10/15/03
Question 1: You told reporters that Iraqis would repel Americans
from the airport, then you never reported about what
happened. So, what really happened in the airport
battle?
Answer 1: The Iraqis really forced Americans out of the airport the
first time. Then, Americans used weapons that burned Iraqi troops,
equipment, and even the ground of the airport. I saw that by my eyes.
When we reported that we forced Americans out of the airport to Abu
Ghareeb area, President Saddam sent a note asking me to modify the
report saying that Americans were not forced out COMPLETELY. Some
of them were still there in the airport. I corrected the report the
following day.
Question 2: (Interviewer showing a video tape on the events
of April 5, inside the airport area). Is this
what you're talking about?
Answer 2: No. This was after the second attack.
Question 3: Have you talked to Sultan Hashem Ahmed, the Defense
Minister, to get information about the airport battle?
Answer 3: No. Sultan was not in Baghdad by then. He left Baghdad on
April 6-7. I don't know why he left, whether to do something else
outside Baghdad or not, I don't know.
Question 4: Why didn't you allow reporters to go to the airport,
as you promised them, to show that Iraqis forced
Americans out of the airport, the first time?
Answer 4: I went by myself as I told you. However, the military
people did not find it a good idea to show the world and the Iraqi
people the degree of devastation and burning in the airport. They
thought it was counterproductive for the morale of the Iraqi military
and the Iraqi people. I think it was a wrong decision on their side.
Question 5: Is this all about the airport battle?
Answer 5: No. The first attack was repelled. We knew that it was
not a decisive attack. When we forced them out, we knew that there
would be other attacks because the Americans wanted the airport
as a strategic target.
The people who fought the first battle were capable and efficient,
so they repelled the Americans. However, they were replaced by other
units, which did not fight well. They new units were confused and
they did not fight well. Actually, many of them left their positions.
One senior official, among the 55 on the US list and who is detained
by the Americans now, told me that there were military officers
who spread the word that there was a break down in the command
and control system. They even came to the personal guards of that
official (Al-Sahaf abstained from mentioning his name because
the information may be used against him in a future trial by the
Americans) and told them to go home because there was no more
command and control.
Question 6: Does this mean that there was a treason? Some reports
said that there were senior Iraqi military officers who
had deals with the Americans. They even were taken with
their families to America. What do you think? Was there
treason, or how do you explain the behavior of these
officers who ordered soldiers to quit and go home?
Answer 6: No, I don't think so, until there is evidence about that.
You know, this was part of the psychological warfare at that time.
Not all Iraqi units quit. Many stayed in their positions. I think
you're referring to Sufian Al-Tikriti, the chief of staff of the
Republican Guard. He is detained by the Americans now. There were
rumors that he left Iraq with his family. They're not true. There
was no treason, until there is evidence about that.
Question 7: Muzahim Al-Tikriti, commander of the air defense,
he was forced out in the 10th day of the war because
of his low performance. Wasn't he one of those who
cut deals with the Americans?
Answer 7: Muzahim is a good man. This is evidenced in the fact that
he is detained by the Americans until now.
Question 8: Appearance of Saddam Hussein on April 4 functioned as
an answer to the American rumors of killing him and was
meant to assure the Iraqi people that they still had
their president functioning among them. Is this true
and what was behind that appearance?
Answer 8: That was on April 6 and it happened after a leadership
meeting, following the second airport battle. In this meeting, the
President did not focus on the airport battle. Instead, he spoke
about Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Army {which was a militia more than an
army - Editor}, observing that its performance was lower than what
was expected. As a result, he fired that Army's leaders, who were
mainly Party leaders, not military leaders, and assigned military
leaders in their place.
There was important fighting only during about five days of the
war. During these days, fighting resulted in destroying about
16-23 enemy tanks everyday, in addition to helicopters and unmanned
planes. We expected to continue on this level but it did not happen.
As a result, the President ordered replacing the Party leaders by
professional military ones, but it was too late.
Question 9: How did Saddam look like in that meeting? Was he
shaken?
Answer 9: He was strong. He would not weaken because of that. This
is Saddam.
Question 10: Did you think it was possible to restart the fighting
after these changes?
Answer 10: Absolutely, yes. I did my best to continue the
psychological preparation as long as Iraqis were fighting.
I was hopeful and sure that changes would lead to better performance
on the battlefield. That's why I kept contacting the military and
the political leadership to have the best knowledge that would
enable me to perform my job in the best way possible, particularly
in the psychological side of the war, to help lift the morale of
people and fighters.
Question 11: You have been accused of focusing on Saddam while
neglecting Iraq, the bigger picture, what do you
say?
Answer 11: I was not defending Saddam Hussein, and there would
be nothing wrong with defending him as he was my President. I was
defending my country, like the rest of Iraqis would do. Iraq was
at war, Iraq was being invaded.
Question 12: The difference began to get bigger and bigger
between what you were announcing everyday and
what was happening in the battlefield. Correct?
Answer 12: Correct.
Question 13: We're now on the 6th of April, or the 18th day of
the war, the day which became known as the day of
surrounding Baghdad.
There was no doubt that US forces were there in the
outer neighborhoods around the capital. Everyone was
waiting for the battle of Baghdad to start, but it
never did.
The exception was the confrontations between some
elements from the Republican Guard and the US forces.
The US forces suffered heavy casualties and losses in
equipment when they tried to cross the Baghdad bridges
and enter neighborhoods, particularly in Ad Doura and
Al-Yarmouk.
(Showing a video of these confrontations)
Video of Al-Sahaf announcing "the Republican Guard's
destruction of 6 tanks and damaging 10 others, killing
50 US soldiers around the airport area. The enemy
retreated in all fronts, including the airport area."
He adds: "Then, when the fighting stopped, the enemy
forces resumed attacks on these areas. Yesterday,
5th of April, the enemy retreated on all fronts. Then
they would come back and take videotape their advance
for propaganda purposes." Any comments about these
statements of yours?
Answer 13: Al-Sahaf: This was the correction that the President
wanted me to announce: That the airport battle on the 5th resulted
in forcing the US forces out of the airport area but they would
come back in another attack. So, it was not far from the truth of
what was going on.
Question 14: During the 7th day of April, some US tanks entered the
Presidential Palaces complex on the Tigress River bank,
which the Iraqi Minister of Information (Al-Sahaf)
denied, although the presence of these tanks was clear
and people could see them over there. ( A video showing
a battle. Al-Sahaf even claimed killing two-thirds of
the forces which attacked these areas in Baghdad).
In another video, Al Sahaf is seen taking journalists in
a tour near the area where there were two US tanks. He
addressed journalists saying that the Americans started
to commit suicide at the walls of Baghdad. He added
asking journalists to write these words down and to hold
him responsible for saying them, for future references.
Jassem Obaid (Abu Dhabi Anchorman): We recorded these
words and we held you responsible for saying them. While
you were talking to journalists these two tanks started
to move from the Presidential Palaces Complex towards
Al-Jumhouriya Bridge. Correct?
Answer 14: Al-Sahaf: Let me explain to you what was happening in the
video you just showed.
These were scenes representing US forces in Al-Russafa firing at
Iraqi forces in the Presidential Palaces Complex. They killed a
number of guards. At the same time, Iraqi forces were ordered to
attack the US forces at Al-Russafa and besiege them in Al-Russoubiya
and Al-Rashid Compound. Another group from the Iraqi Special Guard
attacked the US forces in the Presidential Palace Complex, which
moved away to find itself in Al-Zawra park.
Question 15: In that day, we (Abu Dhabi TV crew) were on our way
to the area. We were told that US forces landed from
the air in the Celebration Area in Al-Mansoor. We
were trapped between the US and Iraqi fire.
Answer 15: Yes, you were between the Unknown Soldier Square and AlZawra
Park. The US briefers said that US forces reached the Ministry
of Information. This prompted me to take journalists in a tour to
show that the briefings were not accurate. In fact, these forces were
repelled and retreated during the day time. However, at night, US
forces entered the Presidential Palaces Complex, which became their
headquarters.
Question 16: Concerning your statements during that day, the 7th of
April, were they your own characterization, your own
initiative, or whose? When you said, "they would be
dealing with."
Answer 16: No, No. I had four sources of information. The Defense
Ministry's Political Department, the Office of the Defense Minister,
the Office of the Chief-of-Staff of the Republican Guard, and
the Office of the Secretary of the President. During that day, the
two sources that I depended most on were the Office of the Defense
Minister and the Office of the Chief-of-Staff of the Republican
Guard. Now, it has become apparent that the US forces controlled
the airport road and the airport itself, or at least major parts
of it. Our forces continued firing at US forces in some areas in
the airport. At that time, I would call seven times a day in order
to get an answer from these sources. In particular, I asked about
the US forces advances on Al-Za'afaraniyah and Al-Mahmoudiyah,
Al-Rashid Camp, and the Baghdad southern roads. They told me that
these US forces have been attacked and would be more effectively
dealt with. They even urged me to send photographers to videotape
these confrontations, which we did in the airport road and Ad
Doura, which you just showed to your viewers.
Question 17: Did the military prevent you from taking photos
anywhere?
Answer 17: Only in Basra and the airport.
Question 18: You said that you were in contact with these offices.
Where were these offices located during the war?
Answer 18: They were in housed and they moved to alternative houses,
but they would be connected with the same telephone net. The field
telephone centers were still functioning.
Question 19: The leadership meeting that followed the fall of the
airport, was it the last meeting?
Answer 19: It was the last meeting that I attended.
Question 20: Have you heard of any other meetings held after
that?
Answer 20: Yes. There was a meeting on the 7th and another on the
8th of April, 2003.
Question 21: What kind of leaders attended these two meetings?
Answer 21: Political and military leaders?
Question 22: (Showing a video of Saddam meeting with military
leaders) Was this the last meeting? And why was
the CNN crew driven out of Iraq on the 3rd day of
the war?
Answer 22: No, this was the President meeting with some military
leaders from Al-Basra. I think it was held on the 6th of April.
Concerning CNN, it was used to spread rumors and functioned as a
tool for psychological warfare. This was in sharp contrast to what it
did in the 1991 Gulf War. (Al-Sahaf was referring to Peter Arnett who
would take the CNN camera to the Iraqi milk formula factory, which
was bombed during a US air attack, in order to show that it was not
a site of producing WMD, as the Pentagon alleged. But that was propeace
Ted Turner's CNN. Now, in 2003, it is Warner's CNN, a 180
degrees different).
Question 23: So, when was the last time the Iraqi leadership met?
(Then showing a video: The last announcement of Al-Sahaf
in Palestine Hotel was on April 8th. He said "The
Americans are surrounded in their tanks because Saddam's
Fedayeen are attacking them with RPGs." Then, he
mentioned the US attacks on Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi
TV stations and the attack on Palestine Hotel. He also
mentioned the US bombing of Baghdad residential
neighborhoods).
Jassem Obaid: How did you arrive to the Palestine Hotel
that day? What was your purpose?
Answer 23: That meeting was on April 8th, and I didn't attend it.
I went to the Palestine Hotel after I was told not to go back to the
Ministry of Information. I went there to give these statements to
lift the morale of the Iraqi people on basis of the information given
to me.
Question 24: Let's go back to the rumor that the Ministry of
Information had fallen and you denied that. Let's
see the video: (Al-Sahaf describing his office and
saying "here I am in my office as you see"). The
real battle was in the airport. Didn't you feel by
that time that Baghdad fell.
Answer 24: I knew it did after the airport battle, but I had to do
my job. I told you from the beginning of these interviews that the
Iraqi leadership knew that we cannot stop the invasion or occupation
of Iraq. All what we were trying to do was to lengthen the period
of resistance to give the world the chance to pressure the invaders.
Question 25: 1. When did the Ministry of Information fall?
Answer 25: The following day, the morning of the 8th of April. I
spent the night in my office. They started to fire at the Ministry
from 5:45- 7:45 a.m. Iraqi guards defended the building and I was
among them. I participated in the fighting with my machine gun.
I felt that they were going to enter the building. I contacted
the Office of Chief-of-Staff of the Republican Guard asking for
reinforcement. They called Saddam's Fedayeen. Then I called the
Office of the Secretary of the President and I told them. During
this time, Iraqi radio and TV stations were working because the US
forces didn't know where they were located. Both the Secretary of
the President and the Republican Guard Office advised me not to go
back to the Ministry building and to move to an alternative office.
This was the Iraqi satellite TV station.
Question 26: 1. That day, the 8th of April, was a dark day for the
media and for journalists who were covering the war.
On Tuesday, the 20th day of the war, Al-Jazeera TV
offices were bombed. Two US tanks positioned at Al-
Jumhouriya Bridge fired at the offices of Al-Jazeera
TV killing Tariq Ayoub. Then, they fired at Abu Dhabi
TV offices, trapping us in the building. Finally,
they fired at the Palestine Hotel, where international
journalists live and report from, killing a Spanish
and a Ukranian journalists.
First, where did you spend the night? Second, the
Iraqi leadership estimated that the first phase of
the resistance would last about three months, right?
Answer 26: There were three adjacent houses. One locating Al-Jazeera
TV, the other locating Abu Dhabi TV, and the third, was where I
spent the night in. I chose to be close to the two TV stations so
I can have access to the world quickly if I wanted to.
You're right in your statement about the expected length of the
resistance, and it was possible to absorb the US show of force
as represented by tanks. But several things went wrong, as I
mentioned before.
Question 27: Do you think that you were the target of the attack
on Al-Jazeera TV and Abu Dhabi TV stations?
Moreover, the 9th of April was the war decisive day.
Saddam appeared in Al-Adhamiya. At the same time,
his statue was toppled down at Al-Firdaws Square. Did
you see it?
Answer 27: No, I don't think that I was a target personally. The
Ministry of Information was a target. I don't know if my presence
was the reason behind the attacks.
On the 8th of April, we prepared a new radio station. Despite all
this, I was ready for a long period of resistance. I was in the
Iraq Satellite Station. I prepared for an alternative headquarters.
Question 28: How was the relationship between you and the
journalists? One day, you came to Al-Jazeera TV
headquarters and rebuked them. Diyar Al-Umary said
that you threatened him personally. What was that
all about?
Answer 28: I was surprised about their reaction to a rumor about the
possibility of an attack on the Ministry of Information. I told them
that the time was critical and did not allow for rumors. I urged them
to come to the Ministry for the briefings. Other than these moments,
the relationship was all right.
Question 29: Why did you impose some restrictions on journalists?
For example, during the first day of the fighting, the
Iraqi intelligence people threatened Abu Dhabi TV crew
of throwing their cameras in the river if they would
videotape the targeted areas. Why were such restrictions
imposed?
And were you realistic in talking about resistance when
the enemy occupied your capital?
Answer 29: This was purely a military issue. You know, if you
broadcast such images, it will benefit the enemy who would like
to know anything resulting from their attacks.
Yes, I had in mind a period of resistance, despite the fall of
the regime. I had to make my own decisions, according to this
understanding.
Question 30: You watched the fall down of the Saddam statue that
became the mark of the fall of Baghdad and the fall
of the regime. Didn't this affect your feelings and
your resolve?
Answer 30: No, it didn't. If you resist in defense of your country,
you don't do it for a person or for his statue. Actually, these
statues should not have been there in the first place. Fighting
a war is one thing and resistance is another. In either case, the
fall of a statue and beating it with shoes is a trivial detail.
Question 31: What do you say about those Iraqis who were happy for
toppling the statue of Saddam and some of them even
beat it with their shoes?
Answer 31: This happens everywhere. In every country, there are
people who don't like their governments. Many French people were
happy for the fall of France to the German invaders. But many
French people also resisted the German occupation of their country.
But this is not the most important event of the last day of the
war, the 9th of April.
Question 32: What's the story behind this statement that you
broadcast? (showing a handwritten statement on
video).
Answer 32: One of the President's assistants brought the statement
to me. It was a speech written by President Saddam with his
handwriting. He wrote me a note to read it, make changes if
necessary, and return it typed to him. I read it. I didn't make
any changes in it. Then, I typed it and gave it to the president's
assistant when he came back after an hour. I observed that, in
the speech, the President was inviting Iraqis to pursue resistance.
Question 33: Was that the last time you had contacts with Saddam
Hussein?
Answer 33: No, No. After about three hours, the man came back with
a recorded speech on tape. That was a little before four o'clock
in the afternoon. The following day, there was a heavy battle in
Al-Adhamiyeh.
Question 34: The following day, you took off your military uniform,
right? Where did you go after that?
Answer 34: Yes. I put on civilian clothes and went to a friend's
house for a while. Then, I went to my aunt's house. My family knew
about my stay there.
Question 35: Were you surprised that you were not wanted by the
Americans?
Answer 35: No, I was not. The Americans claimed that they wanted
people allegedly accused of crimes. Let the courts investigate that.
For me, I was not involved in any crimes. When my friends asked the
Americans if they have a problem with me, they said "No." They just
wanted to conduct a short investigation with me.
Question 36: Don't you think that the list of the 55 who are wanted
by the Americans include people who committed crimes,
like Ali Hassan Al-Majid?
Answer 36: Let the court decide that.
Question 37: Do you want to forward any message to anybody? To
Saddam Hussein, Izzat Ibrahim, Tariq Aziz, comrades?
Answer 37: No messages, I am in seclusion.
Question 38: How do you describe what happened?
Answer 38: Iraq was invaded and the regime fell. This is an era
that needs to be thoroughly studied. I spoke only about my area.
Other areas need to be investigated in depth. This is an enormous
cornerstone in our history.
Jassem Obaid: Thank you for the information you gave during these
interviews about a war that nobody can claim exclusive knowledge
about.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Al-Sahaf%20Talks%20to%
20Abu%20Dhabi%20TV%20about%20the%20War%20on%20Iraq/Fifth%20Interview%
20April%206-9,%202003,%20the%20last%20four%20days%20of%20the%20war.htm
Scott Ritter: The search for Iraqi WMD has become a public joke.
But I, for one, am not laughing Hutton stopped far short of a real
investigation into the Blair government's abysmal abuse of power
04 January 2004
President George Bush, in his State of the Union address in January
last year, told the world that Saddam Hussein had promised he would
disarm his weapons of mass destruction, and that this promise had not
been fulfilled. Bush spoke of the Iraqi president retaining massive
stocks of chemical and biological agent, as well as an ongoing nuclear
weapons programme.
On 20 March 2003, Bush ordered American military forces, accompanied
by the armed forces of Great Britain, to invade Iraq and remove Saddam
Hussein from power. In hiding since the fall of Baghdad, Saddam was
finally run to ground in December. On his capture, he is reported
to have said that WMD was an issue created by George Bush to justify
the invasion of Iraq. This is a claim that has increasing validity.
Tony Blair had already been embarrassed by a growing recognition that
his own intelligence-based estimates regarding Iraqi WMD were every
bit as cooked up as the American president's. He faced further
ignominy when Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional
Authority, publicly mocked his assertions that David Kay, the former
UN weapons inspector turned CIA agent who headed the so-far futile
search for WMD in occupied Iraq, had found "massive evidence of a
huge system of clandestine laboratories". Dismissed by Bremer as
a "red herring", Blair's discredited comments only underscore the
sad fact that the issue of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of
disarmament, has become a public joke.
The misrepresentation and distortion of fact carried out by President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair is no joke, but rather represent an
assault on the very fabric of the concept of a free and democratic
society which they espouse to serve. The people of the United States
are still waiting for a heavily divided Congress to break free of
partisan politics and launch a genuine investigation. This should
certainly look at the massive intelligence failure surrounding
the gross distortion of the Iraqi WMD threat put forward by
the US intelligence community. But perhaps more importantly, the
investigation should focus on the actions of the White House in
shaping the intelligence estimates so that they dovetailed nicely
with the political goals and objectives of the Bush administration's
Iraq policy-makers.
Many in Great Britain might take some pride in knowing that
their democracy, at least, has had an airing of the pre-war
Iraq intelligence which has been denied their American cousins.
The Hutton inquiry has been viewed by many as an investigation into
the politicisation, or "sexing up", of intelligence information
by the British government to help strengthen its case for war. It
stopped far short of any real investigation into the abysmal abuse
of power that occurred when Blair's government lied to Parliament,
and the electorate, about the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. There
was no effort to dig deep into the systematic politicisation of
the British intelligence system, to untangle the web of deceit and
misinformation concerning Iraq peddled over the years by the Foreign
Office, the Ministry of Defence and British intelligence.
The damage done goes well beyond the borders of the US and Britain.
One must also calculate the irreparable harm done to the precepts of
international law, the viability of multilateral organisations such
as the United Nations, and the concepts of diplomacy and arms control
which kept the world from destroying itself during the last century.
Iran, faced with 130,000 American soldiers on its border, has
opened its nuclear facilities to inspection. North Korea has done
the same. Libya, in a surprise move, has traded in its own overblown
WMD aspirations in exchange for diplomatic recognition and economic
interaction with the West. But none of these moves, as welcome as
they are, have the depth and reach to compare with the decision by
South Africa or the former republics of the Soviet Union to get rid
of their respective nuclear weapons. The latter represented actions
taken freely, wrapped in the principles of international law. The
former are merely coerced concessions, given more as a means of
buying time than through any spirit of true co-operation. Sold
by George Bush and Tony Blair as diplomatic triumphs derived from
the Iraq experience, the sad reality is that these steps towards
disarmament are every bit as illusory as Saddam's WMD arsenal.
They are all the more dangerous, too, because the safety net of
international law that the world could once have turned to when
these compelled concessions inevitably collapse no longer exists.
Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector from 1991-98. He is the
author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the
Bushwhacking of America'
+ 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=477860
Hawks tell Bush how to win war on terror
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 31/12/2003)
President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by
Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and
a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning
for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.
The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on
terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not
as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.
The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a
Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neoconservative
movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter.
They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in
Washington.
In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an
attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike
back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their
foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the
military top brass.
Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror,
coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number
one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.
Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr
Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging"
signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States
to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.
Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge
Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in
concert with Iranian dissidents.
It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by
hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the
Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president,
Dick Cheney.
Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but
have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their postwar
visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled
back in favour of compromise and a swift handover of power next
June.
The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the
complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.
As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges
a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war,
including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean
border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.
Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally,
Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors
write.
The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also
be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing
arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.
The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia".
Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they
write.
The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations"
as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version
of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North
America".
The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of
offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose
between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence
from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for
British arms to American defence markets.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/
12/31/wcons31.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/31/ixnewstop.html
BBC Translation Of Osama Bin Ladens New Tape
Jan 05, 2004
Source: BBC
Here is the BBC translation of Osama bin Ladens January 4th tape,
without the Quranic references.
From Osama Bin Laden to his brothers and sisters in the entire
Islamic nation: May God's peace, mercy and blessings be upon
you.
My message to you concerns inciting and continuing to urge for
jihad to repulse the grand plots that have been hatched against
our nation, especially since some of them have appeared clearly,
such as the occupation of the crusaders, with the help of the
apostates, of Baghdad and the house of the caliphate [the succession
of rulers of the Islamic nation], under the trick of weapons of
mass destruction.
There is also the fierce attempt to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque
and destroy the jihad and the mujahideen in beloved Palestine
by employing the trick of the roadmap and the Geneva peace
initiative.
The Americans' intentions have also become clear in statements
about the need to change the beliefs, curricula and morals of the
Muslims to become more tolerant, as they put it. In clearer terms,
it is a religious-economic war. The occupation of Iraq is a link
in the Zionist-crusader chain of evil.
Then comes the full occupation of the rest of the Gulf states to
set the stage for controlling and dominating the whole world. For
the big powers believe that the Gulf and the Gulf states are the
key to controlling the world due to the presence of the largest
oil reserves there.
O Muslims: The situation is serious and the misfortune is momentous.
By God, I am keen on safeguarding your religion and your worldly
life.
So, lend me your ears and open up your hearts to me so that we may
examine these pitch-black misfortunes and so that we may consider
how we can find a way out of these adversities and calamities.
The West's occupation of our countries is old, yet new.
The struggle between us and them, the confrontation, and clashing
began centuries ago, and will continue because the ground rules
regarding the fight between right and falsehood will remain valid
until Judgment Day.
Take note of this ground rule regarding this fight. There can be no
dialogue with occupiers except through arms.
This is what we need today, and what we should seek. Islamic
countries in the past century were not liberated from the
crusaders' military occupation except through jihad in the
cause of God.
Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, the West today is doing
its utmost to tarnish jihad and kill anyone seeking jihad.
The West is supported in this endeavour by hypocrites.
This is because they all know that jihad is the effective power to
foil all their conspiracies.
Jihad is the path, so seek it.
This is because if we seek to deter them with any means other than
Islam, we would be like the one who goes round in circles.
We would also be like our forefathers, the al-Ghasasinah [Arab
people who lived in a state historically located in the northwest
of the Persian empire].
The concern of their seniors was to be appointed officers for the
Romans and to be named kings in order to safeguard the interests
of the Romans by killing their brothers of the peninsula's Arabs.
Such is the case of the new al-Ghasasinah; namely, Arab rulers.
Muslims: If you do not punish them for their sins in Jerusalem
and Iraq, they shall defeat you because of your failure. They will
also rob you of land of al-Haramayn [Mecca and Medina]. Today [they
robbed you] of Baghdad and tomorrow they will rob you of Riyadh
and so forth unless God deems otherwise. Sufficient unto us is God.
What then is the means to stop this tremendous onslaught?
In such hard times, some reformers maintain that all popular and
official forces should unite and that all government forces should
unite with all their peoples. Everyone would do what is needed from
him in order to ward off this crusader-Zionist onslaught.
The question strongly raised is: Are the governments in the Islamic
world capable of pursuing this duty of defending the faith and
nation and renouncing allegiance to the United States? The calls by
some reformers are strange. They say that the path to righteousness
and defending the country and people passes though the doors of
those rulers.
I tell those reformers: If you have an excuse for not pursing jihad,
it does not give you the right to depend on the unjust ones, thus
becoming responsible for your sins as well as the sins of those who
you misguide. Fear God for your sake and for your nation's sake.
God does not need your flattery of dictators for the sake of God's
religion.
The Gulf states proved their total inability to resist the Iraqi
forces. They sought help from the crusaders, led by the United
States, as is well known.
How can these states stand up to the United States? In short, these
states came to America's help and backed it in its attack against
an Arab state which is bound to them with covenants of joint defence
agreements. These covenants were reiterated at the Arab League just
a few days before the US attack, only to violate them in full.
This shows their positions on the nation's basic causes. These
regimes wavered too much before taking a stand on using force and
attacking Iraq. At times they absolutely rejected participation
and at other times they linked this with UN agreement. Then they
went back to their first option.
In fact, the lack of participation was in line with the domestic
desire of these states. However, they finally submitted and
succumbed to US pressure and opened their air, land and sea
bases to contribute toward the US campaign, despite the immense
repercussions of this move. Most important of these repercussions
is that this is a sin against one of the Islamic tenets.
Saddam arrest Most important and dangerous in their view was
that they feared that the door would be open for bringing down
dictatorial regimes by armed forces from abroad, especially
after they had seen the arrest of their former comrade in treason
and agentry to the United States when it ordered him to ignite
the first Gulf war against Iran, which rebelled against it.
The war consumed everything and plunged the area in a maze from
which they have not emerged to this day. They are aware that
their turn will come.
They do not have the will to make the difficult decision to confront
the aggression, in addition to their belief that they do not possess
the material resources for that. Indeed, they were prevented from
establishing a large military force when they were forced to sign
secret pledges and documents long ago.
In short, the ruler who believes in some of the above-mentioned
deeds cannot defend the country. How can he do so if he believes
in all of them and has done that time and again?
Those who believe in the principle of supporting the infidels over
Muslims and leave the blood, honour and property of their brothers
to be available to their enemy in order to remain safe, claiming
that they love their brothers but are being forced to take such a
path - of course this compulsion cannot be regarded as legitimate -
are in fact qualified to take the same course against one another
in the Gulf states.
Indeed, this principle is liable to be embraced within the same
state itself. Those who read and understood the history of kings
throughout history know that they are capable of committing more
than these concessions, except those who enjoyed the mercy of God.
Indeed, the rulers have practically started to sell out the sons
of the land by pursuing and imprisoning them and by unjustly and
wrongly accusing them of becoming like the al-Khawarij sect who
held Muslims to be infidels and by committing the excesses of
killing them. We hold them to be martyrs and God will judge them.
All of this happened before the Riyadh explosions in Rabi al-Awwal
of this year [around May, 2003]. This campaign came within a drive
to implement the US orders in the hope that they will win its
blessings.
Based on the above, the extent of the real danger, which the region
in general and the Arabian Peninsula in particular, is being exposed
to, has appeared. It has become clear that the rulers are not
qualified to apply the religion and defend the Muslims. In fact,
they have provided evidence that they are implementing the schemes
of the enemies of the nation and religion and that they are
qualified to abandon the countries and peoples.
Now, after we have known the situation of the rulers, we should
examine the policy which they have been pursuing. Anyone who
examines the policy of those rulers will easily see that they
follow their whims and desires and their personal interests and
crusader loyalties. Therefore, the flaw does not involve a secondary
issue, such as personal corruption that is confined to the palace
of the ruler. The flaw is in the very approach.
This happened when a malicious belief and destructive principle
spread in most walks of life, to the effect that absolute supremacy
and obedience were due to the ruler and not to the religion of God.
In other countries, they have used the guise of parliaments and
democracy. Thus, the situation of all Arab countries suffers from
great deterioration in all walks of life, in religious and worldly
matters.
We have reached this miserable situation because many of us lack the
correct and comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam.
Many of us understand Islam to mean performing some acts of worship,
such as prayer and fasting.
Despite the great importance of these rituals, the religion of Islam
encompasses all the affairs of life, including religious and worldly
affairs, such as economic, military and political affairs, as well
as the scales by which we weigh the actions of men - rulers, ulema
and others - and how to deal with the ruler in line with the rules
set by God for him and which the ruler should not violate.
Therefore, it becomes clear to us that the solution lies in adhering
to the religion of God, by which God granted us pride in the past
centuries and installing a strong and faithful leadership that
applies the Koran among us and raises the true banner of jihad.
The honest people who are concerned about this situation, such as
the ulema, leaders who are obeyed among their people, dignitaries,
notables and merchants should get together and meet in a safe
place away from the shadow of these suppressive regimes and form
a council for Ahl al-Hall wa al-Aqd [literally those who loose
and bind; reference to honest, wise and righteous people who can
appoint or remove a ruler in Islamic tradition] to fill the vacuum
caused by the religious invalidation of these regimes and their
mental deficiency.
The right to appoint an imam [leader] is for the nation. The nation
also has the right to make him correct his course if he deviates
from it and to remove him if he does something that warrants this,
such as apostasy and treason.
This temporary council should be made up of the minimum number
of available personnel, without [word indistinct] the rest of the
nation, except what the religion allows in case of necessity, until
the number is increased when the situation improves, God willing.
Their policy should be based on the book of God [the Koran] and
the Sunna [tradition] of his Prophet [Muhammad], God's peace and
blessings be upon him.
They should start by directing the Muslims to the important
priorities at this critical stage and lead them to a safe haven,
provided that their top priority should be uniting opinions
under the word of monotheism and defending Islam and its people
and countries and declaring a general mobilisation in the nation
to prepare for repulsing the raids of the Romans, which started
in Iraq and no-one knows where they will end.
God suffices us and he is the best supporter.
http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=
89997&list=/home.php&
>----->----->----->----->-----><-----<-----<-----<-----<-----<
NEUE MAILINGLISTE! www.giv-seiten.de OUR NEW MAILINGLIST!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jetzt Abonnieren: giv_mailing-subscribe@giv-seiten.de
Subscribe Now: giv_mailing_eng-subscribe@giv-seiten.de
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zum Abbestellen: giv_mailing-unsubscribe@giv-seiten.de
To Unsubscribe: giv_mailing_eng-unsubscribe@giv-seiten.de
>----->----->----->----->-----><-----<-----<-----<-----<-----<
http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/www.giv-archiv.de/2002/Oktober/021031GI.010
Kasnazaniya / Casnazaniyyah
http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/www.irak.de.cx/Video/kcas-16.htm
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<
>> Further Informations about Iraq and Palestine:
>> GIV-Archiv: http://www.giv-archiv.de http://www.giv-seiten.de.tt
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/index.html http://giv-seiten.de
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.irak.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv-archiv.de/index.html
>> http://soziales.freepage.de/irak/index.htm
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<
|
