Home News Über uns TeilnehmerInnen-Bereich

Diskussionsforen /CL-Netz NM - Lektorat Teilnahme Angenehmer lesen Veröffentlichen Feedback Zugang und Kontakt Treffen Impressum

Nachricht im Forum "cl.politik.frieden" beantworten Absender: eMail: Betreff: (Bitte den zitierten Text kürzen! Also keine kompletten Voll-Quotes abschicken! Danke!) Text: Gerhard Lange c/o GIV schrieb am 06.01.04: > > 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 Gleichbe- > handlung 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 auf- > gefordert, 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 will- > kürlich 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 doku- > mentarische Belege, die eine spätere Identifizierung und Straf- > verfolgung ermöglichen würden. Daß dies ohnehin nicht gewollt > ist, macht der Text des Dekrets Nummer 17 der »Provisorischen > Autorität der Koalition«, also der US-geführten Besatzungsver- > waltung, deutlich, welches die Koalitionstruppen über das Recht > stellt. In Absatz 2 dieses Dokuments heißt es: »Das gesamte > Personal der Koalition untersteht ausschließlich der Gerichtsbar- > keit 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 ent- > scheiden, 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 all- > gemeines 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 neo- > konservativen 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 anzu- > knüpfen, 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 zu- > sammen. > > 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 Kompro- > missen 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/3D97ABA9-8394-407F- > AD84-557881034BB3.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-419B- > A1AC-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 Al- > Zawra 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 pro- > peace 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 neo- > conservative 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 post- > war 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 north- > west 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 > >>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<< > > * * * * *   [ Zurück zur Nachricht ]