EXECUTED Now What ?
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
What amazes me is that the death penalty is an incredibly complex issue but here in America it's just so fucked up, for lack of a better way of putting. I know the Pope and the leaders of several major churches have spoken out about the death penalty but it's their very followers who want it. I truly believe that if more good-looking white middle class men were executed this country we would have a much different debate about it.
My personnel feelings about the death penalty are kind of iffy, I think it's a very complex issue, but in this country, it's fuck it, kill em. I'm not a religious man at all, but I stop and think what gives people the right to play God. Was executing Saddam the Christian thing to do? What would Jesus do?
My personnel feelings about the death penalty are kind of iffy, I think it's a very complex issue, but in this country, it's fuck it, kill em. I'm not a religious man at all, but I stop and think what gives people the right to play God. Was executing Saddam the Christian thing to do? What would Jesus do?
Now a few hundred more muslm on muslim killings that will last a few months and that shit will pass. Don't forget, when Saddam was captured by US armed forces, they picked his ass out of a rat hole with a bag of US currency and a gun he was too punked to use. So he doesn't get "thug" status amoung his peeps.
The killing will go on because that is the true nature of their belief structure. Believers at the point of a gun. Period.
-VG
The killing will go on because that is the true nature of their belief structure. Believers at the point of a gun. Period.
-VG
rude_dog said:
I suspect you are since you are making this analogy. However if you are not, I would quit attempting to examining issues from a biblical perspective. Mainly because you got this twisted like a paperclip.
Christians didn't execute Saddam. He was tried in an Iraqi court, Iraqi Judges and Iraqi appeals process. The executioner was Iraqi.
Let me ask you this, you have a wife, 3 kids, mother father, a few cousins, some friends you kick it with many of who you grew up with. Here come US government with a republican president stating they are sick of people in your hood committing murder and selling drugs. Maybe you have and maybe you haven't but thats how the president feels. Then they decide to drop mustard gas in the middle of town killing everybody in a 30 mile radius but you.
The republican president is tried and found guilty of crimes against humanity. You just leave the hospital signing those papers pulling life support from your father.
Do you still feel as if he should not be put to death by the state?
-VG
Now all the Bush family secrets are safe
(until the next dictator that daddy put in power freaks out)
(until the next dictator that daddy put in power freaks out)
The war in Iraq has killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Saddam was at "war" with the Shiites, whom he thought were trying to kill him. He gets executed and I'm sure he deserved it, however, who else should be executed for the murder of innocent lives?
From the airstrikes dropped by the US that killed hundreds at a wedding...
From the systematic murder in the streets of innocent Iraqis...
From the rape and murder of innocent Iraqi girls....
Tell me, who should be held to account for those crimes? Or since we call it "war" no one goes punished? The US can do whatever it wants, to whom ever it wants, however it wants, and there is never any accountability.
I'm am in no way against our soldiers fighting over there. The are caught in the middle, and are serving their country bravely. I am against the way our goverment feels that it has everything to teach others, and nothing to learn from them. I am against how we try to systematically "liberate" countries in which we have a financial (oil) interest, to "root out" dictators, and to spread "democracy" yet turn a blind eye to the carnage in Somalia, Serra Leone, and Rwanda.
How is it that America is so proficient at spreading "democracy" across the globe, but we haven't perfected this same "democracy" here in the US? There is still no JUSTICE for ALL. There is not EQUALITY for ALL. The RICH and POWERFUL have more rights than the common man. People in the Middle East see this "democracy" we proclaim, and say "we don't want any part of that".
They see the streets of New Orleans lined with hungry and thirsty people looking for help after Katrina, and wonder "this is democracy"?
They see an unarmed husband to be leaving a nightclub with his friends, get shot 50 times and wonder "this is democracy"?
They see polling places during an election, in black neighborhoods, with 2000 registered voters, but only 2 or 3 voting machines. And in a white neighborhood with 2000 voters, 12-14 voting machines, and wonder "this is democracy"?
People we "America" are in trouble. I don't think the American people realize it. We think 911 was bad, but we have no idea. We have to change our entire foreign policy, but it won't happen. Its war first, diplomacy second, unless you have nukes.
That's exactly what Iran knows.
From the airstrikes dropped by the US that killed hundreds at a wedding...
From the systematic murder in the streets of innocent Iraqis...
From the rape and murder of innocent Iraqi girls....
Tell me, who should be held to account for those crimes? Or since we call it "war" no one goes punished? The US can do whatever it wants, to whom ever it wants, however it wants, and there is never any accountability.
I'm am in no way against our soldiers fighting over there. The are caught in the middle, and are serving their country bravely. I am against the way our goverment feels that it has everything to teach others, and nothing to learn from them. I am against how we try to systematically "liberate" countries in which we have a financial (oil) interest, to "root out" dictators, and to spread "democracy" yet turn a blind eye to the carnage in Somalia, Serra Leone, and Rwanda.
How is it that America is so proficient at spreading "democracy" across the globe, but we haven't perfected this same "democracy" here in the US? There is still no JUSTICE for ALL. There is not EQUALITY for ALL. The RICH and POWERFUL have more rights than the common man. People in the Middle East see this "democracy" we proclaim, and say "we don't want any part of that".
They see the streets of New Orleans lined with hungry and thirsty people looking for help after Katrina, and wonder "this is democracy"?
They see an unarmed husband to be leaving a nightclub with his friends, get shot 50 times and wonder "this is democracy"?
They see polling places during an election, in black neighborhoods, with 2000 registered voters, but only 2 or 3 voting machines. And in a white neighborhood with 2000 voters, 12-14 voting machines, and wonder "this is democracy"?
People we "America" are in trouble. I don't think the American people realize it. We think 911 was bad, but we have no idea. We have to change our entire foreign policy, but it won't happen. Its war first, diplomacy second, unless you have nukes.
That's exactly what Iran knows.
Couldn't agree more but first we have to define who "We" are. If we is the average everyday "bloke" [lol smh] waiting for politicians to get their act together then "We" are fucked. On the other hand if "We" are the people who are so tired of this bullshit we are willing to spend our extra time and money on organizing and moblizing the power of the internet to change our nation and our people then "We" are a group I would love to be a part of.
QueEx said:
Assasinated is more like it....
QueEx said:
Well, the Sunnis, the minority, will continue their insurgencies until they are satisfied with an agreement of sorts that will enable them to have a say so in the "new" Iraq.
The Shias, the majority, will now be under the microscope to ascertain if their true allegiance is to Iraq and not to Iran...which just so happens to be a Shia country, from the president to the ayatolla (the real president).
QueEx said:
Nope, there will still be killings carried out by the various death sqauds...there will still be US troops dying in the streets of Iraq...this will continue for the next couple of years.
QueEx said:
The power of propaganda/mass media was proven to be as effective as ever....
QueEx said:
Not for a few years....
Al-Queda has a stronghold in Iraq in the Sunni extremists which will lead to a BS central government being slowly torn apart by anti-US sentiment...the same anti-US sentiment that had the Shah thumbing it on the highway.
QueEx said:
The next president will be stuck trying to clean up the mess created by this administration, which should be started the day after the next presidential election....
The Republican candidate for president will be raked over the coals in live debates by every opponent, effectively making him look like a fool trying to explain the inconsistencies in the Middle East foreign policy....
Iraq will be hell in a handbasket when the new administration decides to pull out of the quagmire in Iraq, leading to there being no difference between Iraq and Iran....
QueEx said:
Saudi arabia will continue to back the sunnis
Iran the shite.
The kurds will continue to do WTF ever it is they do.
The corpocracy media will never put the saudis on front street for their blatant involvement in said insurgency but will continue its state run media assualt on iran.
Violence will contiue to rize cause this isnt just the sunnis vs shites, its sunnis vs sunnis and shites vs shites.
Just as some crip gangs fued with other crips just as much as bloods and vice versa with no end in sight but with a deeper history.
America will continue to pump up any stupid ass election that happens when we cannot even get it right here, if our polls cannot be trusted I dare not think of the crooked shit in iraq.
Israel, and one of the main reasons for the war will continue to act an ass.
If america leaves iraq all "iraqi traitors"(those that helped america) will face execution just as those that helped the british did almost a century ago.
Public opinion of the war will not matter UNLESS there is a draft, but with people still signing up public opinion can always be swayed by our state run media, I really dont see americas troops coming home anytime soon
The country some time in the next few years will have its european forced borders redrawn, which many of us said from the start would happen.
Seeing as israel cannot stand anybody that doesnt stand zionist intentions it will be interesting to see which state america supports.
Since sodam is dead they can support their friends the saudis sunnis and not the iran shites.
I can see how our state run media will play this, they will say all the baathists sunni supporters are dead or were broken by sodams death and the saudi backed sunnis are being picked on by the iran backed shiites................................................................. if I'm lying i'm flying.
DEBKAfile Exclusive:
<font size="5"><center>Saddam Hussein’s execution was a stage
in the newly-crafted Iraq strategy Bush
has promised to unveil in the New Year </font size></center>
DEBKAFile
January 1, 2007, 11:29 AM (GMT+02:00)
The strategy, already in the works, was first revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 283, Dec. 22. It hinged on the cooperation of two key national religious figures: the most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and the Sunni cleric with the most influence on the Sunni Arab insurgency and the Baath, Sheik Hares al-Dari, head of the Sunna Scholars Council. The plan as conceived by the US president is not contingent on engaging either Iran or Syria.
The next stage, possibly the toughest, is to bring a form of stability and security to Baghdad, for which an infusion of troops will be required, followed by the partition of Iraq into three semi-autonomous Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni regions. Baghdad will serve as the federal capital. Its key role will be the administration of Iraq’s oil resources. Oil revenue will be distributed equitably to all three regions by a higher oil authority, whose members will not be Iraqis but Iraqi federal government appointees backed by the national army.
These arrangements which depend largely on the continuing cooperation of the two clerics are intended to pave the way for the orderly exit of US forces from Iraq.
(Picture: US soldiers in the northern oil city of Kirkuk. Under the new Bush plan, US units will control the oil city and its oil fields to fend off a Kurdish grab)
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3689
<font size="5"><center>Saddam Hussein’s execution was a stage
in the newly-crafted Iraq strategy Bush
has promised to unveil in the New Year </font size></center>
DEBKAFile
January 1, 2007, 11:29 AM (GMT+02:00)
The strategy, already in the works, was first revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 283, Dec. 22. It hinged on the cooperation of two key national religious figures: the most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and the Sunni cleric with the most influence on the Sunni Arab insurgency and the Baath, Sheik Hares al-Dari, head of the Sunna Scholars Council. The plan as conceived by the US president is not contingent on engaging either Iran or Syria.
The next stage, possibly the toughest, is to bring a form of stability and security to Baghdad, for which an infusion of troops will be required, followed by the partition of Iraq into three semi-autonomous Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni regions. Baghdad will serve as the federal capital. Its key role will be the administration of Iraq’s oil resources. Oil revenue will be distributed equitably to all three regions by a higher oil authority, whose members will not be Iraqis but Iraqi federal government appointees backed by the national army.
These arrangements which depend largely on the continuing cooperation of the two clerics are intended to pave the way for the orderly exit of US forces from Iraq.
(Picture: US soldiers in the northern oil city of Kirkuk. Under the new Bush plan, US units will control the oil city and its oil fields to fend off a Kurdish grab)
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3689
What comes around goes around...
<font size="4"><center>Iraq’s renegade Baath party names Izzat Ibrahim
al-Douri new leader and successor to Saddam Hussein</font size>
<font size="3">Saddam’s former deputy escaped US capture after the 2003 invasion</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
January 1, 2007, 10:34 PM (GMT+02:00)
Saddam’s former deputy, who escaped US capture after the 2003 invasion, was falsely reported by Baath sources to have died on the run. US intelligence dismissed the claim as a red herring. DEBKAfile reports: From his places of hiding, usually Syria but also Yemen, he ran many of the Baath Sunni terrorist and guerrilla operations in Iraq.
As one of Saddam’s closest confidants, he was also in charge of Saddam’s secret funds. The Baath party announced that henceforth its insurgent operations would focus on the single goal of fighting the Americans.
Our military sources take this as an order to Baathist fighters to quit the Sunni factions waging war on Iraq’s Shiite community in keeping with Saddam’s last injunction to the Iraqi people: to unite behind the common enemy, the US. It also appeals to the Shiite rank and file who served in Saddam’s army to join the Baath militias to avenge Saddam’s death and build bridges to end their sectarian war. This move is designed to undermine the new Bush master-plan for bridge-building to curb Sunni-Shiite warfare in Iraq
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3691
al-Douri new leader and successor to Saddam Hussein</font size>
<font size="3">Saddam’s former deputy escaped US capture after the 2003 invasion</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
January 1, 2007, 10:34 PM (GMT+02:00)
Saddam’s former deputy, who escaped US capture after the 2003 invasion, was falsely reported by Baath sources to have died on the run. US intelligence dismissed the claim as a red herring. DEBKAfile reports: From his places of hiding, usually Syria but also Yemen, he ran many of the Baath Sunni terrorist and guerrilla operations in Iraq.
As one of Saddam’s closest confidants, he was also in charge of Saddam’s secret funds. The Baath party announced that henceforth its insurgent operations would focus on the single goal of fighting the Americans.
Our military sources take this as an order to Baathist fighters to quit the Sunni factions waging war on Iraq’s Shiite community in keeping with Saddam’s last injunction to the Iraqi people: to unite behind the common enemy, the US. It also appeals to the Shiite rank and file who served in Saddam’s army to join the Baath militias to avenge Saddam’s death and build bridges to end their sectarian war. This move is designed to undermine the new Bush master-plan for bridge-building to curb Sunni-Shiite warfare in Iraq
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3691
<font size="4">
The implications from the execution of Saddam
Hussein are deeper than and wider than just
Iraq. See Article below:
</font size>
QueEx
______________________________________________________
<font size="3">Saddam death raises tribal, religious ire in Saudi</font size>
Reuters
Thu Jan 4, 2007 4:38am ET
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein's unruly execution on the feast of
Eid al-Adha by masked Shi'ite hangmen taunting him on the gallows has
revived Sunni Arab fears that the Iraqi government is run by vengeful
sectarian Shi'ites backed by Iran.
Feelings run particularly high in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two main
bastions of Sunni Islam.
For clerics from Saudi Arabia's hardline Wahhabi branch of Islam, the
execution proved that Iraqi Shi'ites, in alliance with Iran, are infidels
who have declared war on Sunni Islam.
For ordinary Saudis, it was an affront to their sense of Arab tribal honor.
"This was a death squad that did this, a mob. But we should thank the
high-level government officials who were there for filming it and allowing
us to see the truth," said Turki Rasheed, who hails from a major Saudi tribe.
"But the best thing was the way he (Saddam) handled the situation. He
fought them with this body language, with his eyes and his talk. He
became a hero," he said.
The unofficial film of Saddam's hanging, apparently filmed on a mobile
phone, showed Shi'ite officials bullying Sadddam, chanting the name of
Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and cursing him just before he was hanged.
Some Saudis have been passing around a flood of pro-Saddam poetry on
mobile phone text messages. One Gulf newspaper carried a poem that
Saudis suspect was penned by a government official.
One piece of verse threatened revenge for Saddam's death.
"Prepare the gun that will avenge Saddam. The criminal who signed the
execution order without valid reason cheated us on our celebration day.
How beautiful it will be when the bullet goes through the heart of him
who betrayed Arabism," it said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...0_TEXT0.xml&src=010407_0834_FEATURES_analysis
The implications from the execution of Saddam
Hussein are deeper than and wider than just
Iraq. See Article below:
</font size>
QueEx
______________________________________________________
<font size="3">Saddam death raises tribal, religious ire in Saudi</font size>
Reuters
Thu Jan 4, 2007 4:38am ET
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein's unruly execution on the feast of
Eid al-Adha by masked Shi'ite hangmen taunting him on the gallows has
revived Sunni Arab fears that the Iraqi government is run by vengeful
sectarian Shi'ites backed by Iran.
Feelings run particularly high in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two main
bastions of Sunni Islam.
For clerics from Saudi Arabia's hardline Wahhabi branch of Islam, the
execution proved that Iraqi Shi'ites, in alliance with Iran, are infidels
who have declared war on Sunni Islam.
For ordinary Saudis, it was an affront to their sense of Arab tribal honor.
"This was a death squad that did this, a mob. But we should thank the
high-level government officials who were there for filming it and allowing
us to see the truth," said Turki Rasheed, who hails from a major Saudi tribe.
"But the best thing was the way he (Saddam) handled the situation. He
fought them with this body language, with his eyes and his talk. He
became a hero," he said.
The unofficial film of Saddam's hanging, apparently filmed on a mobile
phone, showed Shi'ite officials bullying Sadddam, chanting the name of
Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and cursing him just before he was hanged.
Some Saudis have been passing around a flood of pro-Saddam poetry on
mobile phone text messages. One Gulf newspaper carried a poem that
Saudis suspect was penned by a government official.
One piece of verse threatened revenge for Saddam's death.
"Prepare the gun that will avenge Saddam. The criminal who signed the
execution order without valid reason cheated us on our celebration day.
How beautiful it will be when the bullet goes through the heart of him
who betrayed Arabism," it said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...0_TEXT0.xml&src=010407_0834_FEATURES_analysis
QueEx said:
Dam cisco on the money again.
Why the american media doesnt cover the saudis interest in this proves how full of shit our media is, all you hear is IRAN IRAN IRAN IRAN IRAN IRAN.
Little could I predict sodams cool in the face of the taunts and the hidden camera showing the taunts and the propaganda release by US run iraq of the "silent video".
What a mess but i guess the money is worth it to the elite over here.
The zionist playing this shit real close, real close. They pay egypt alot of dough to be at peace with israel and let the saudis get away with anything and try to side with iraqi shites and not the shite state of iran.
History will mark this shit as one of the dumbest moves by an empire ever.
<font size="3">
The implications from the execution of Saddam
Hussein are deeper than and wider than just
Iraq. See Article below:
QueEx
__________________________________________________
</font size>
<font size="5"><center>An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe</font size></center>
Anatole Kaletsky
The Times (London)
January 04, 2007
Most people think that the bungled invasion of Iraq, climaxing last week with the bungled execution-assassination of Saddam Hussein, will go down in history as the ultimate symbol of the Bush Administration’s hubris and incompetence. They should think again. With the dawning of a new year, the Bush-Blair partnership is working on an even more horrendous foreign policy disaster.
What now seems to be in preparation at the White House, with the usual unquestioning support from Downing Street, is a Middle Eastern equivalent of the Second World War. The trigger for this all-embracing war would be the formation of a previously unthinkable alliance between America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain, to confront Iran and the rise of the power of Shia Islam.
The logical outcome of this “pinning back” process would be an air strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with a renewed Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, aggressive action by American and British soldiers to crush Iraq’s Shia militias, while Saudi-backed Sunni terrorists undermined the increasingly precarious pro-Iranian Government in Baghdad.
Consider the ominous events that occurred in the Middle East and Washington over the holiday season, while most people were paying more attention to their turkeys and Christmas stockings. The first in this sequence of events was Tony Blair’s abrupt announcement that members of the Saudi Royal Family accused of taking bribes from British defence contractors would be exempted from the application of British law. To risk a confrontation with the Saudi Royal Family, Mr Blair asserted, would have jeopardised Britain’s security interests in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, as well as dashing hopes of progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This embarrassing announcement by Mr Blair was quickly followed by his Dubai speech, in which he called for an “arc of moderation” to “pin back” Iran’s advances in the Middle East.
The second event, almost simultaneous with Mr Blair’s bribery announcement, was the equally unexpected resignation of Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, on December 15. Prince Turki has long been a key figure in the Saudi security establishment, whose last abrupt career move occurred in the autumn of 2001, when he suddenly resigned as liaison between the Saudi Royal Family and the Taleban terrorists that they had been financing until just before September 11. Turki was a leading member of a faction in the Saudi Royal Family that has for months been advocating a more conciliatory response towards the Shia hegemony in Iraq, including an effort to open direct negotiations between America and Iran, as recommended by James Baker’s Iraq Study Group. The Turki group’s main rivals in the Saudi establishment have by contrast argued for much tougher military action against what they called the “Christian-Shia conspiracy” created by the US toleration of Iranian influence over Iraq.
The Saudi power struggle came into the open through an article published in The Washington Post in mid-December, by Nawaf Obeid, a Saudi security consultant ostensibly working for Turki, but actually closer to the hardliners. Obeid cautioned that if American troops were withdrawn from Iraq prematurely, in line with the Baker report’s recommendations, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene forcibly “to stop Iranian-backed Shi a militias from butchering Iraq’s Sunnis”. Turki immediately fired Obeid, but shortly afterwards was himself replaced by a hardliner.
Within Saudi Arabia itself, meanwhile, the anti-Iranian rhetoric is gathering strength. Take this example from al-Salafi magazine, quoted in The New York Times: “Iran has become more dangerous than Israel itself. The Iranian revolution has come to renew the Persian presence in our region. This is the real clash of civilisations.”
The link between Israel and Iran in Saudi thinking brings us to the third event in this chillingly unfestive sequence: the confrontation over nuclear proliferation between the UN Security Council and Iran. If Iran is now really hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, Israel has made it abundantly clear that it is equally hell-bent on stopping it — whether by diplomatic or military means. Whether Israeli bombing would in practice do serious damage to the Iranian nuclear programme is far from clear, but there are certainly hotheads in the Israeli Government and military establishment who are itching to try.
There is, however, one binding constraint on Israel’s freedom of action against Iran. This is the US. It is unlikely that Israel would bomb Iran without explicit American approval and it is certain that a US president would stop Israel if he believed America’s national interest demanded it.
That has been the situation until recently, since America has depended on Iranian-backed Shia politicians to prevent a total collapse of order and a humiliating Saigon-style expulsion of American soldiers in Iraq.
Although Israel has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, many Israeli politicians believe that they are entitled to punish Iran for its non-compliance with the treaty. For these trigger-happy Israelis, Iran’s backdoor influence over Washington via the Iraqi Shia has become a nightmare. The same is true of the Saudi princes. The Saudi Royal Family rules a largely Shia country on the basis of a fanatically enforced state religion whose senior spokesmen denounce the Shia as heretic scum. These feelings are entirely mutual — Iran’s mad mullahs hate the Wahhabis every bit as much.
Thus, if there is one country in the world more worried than Israel about an Iranian A-bomb, it is Saudi Arabia. And if there are two countries in the world with real influence on the Bush White House, they are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now both these countries are telling President Bush that he must pull the plug on Iraq’s Shia Government, tear up the Baker report, whose most important advice was to open diplomatic channels to Tehran, and prepare to attack Iran, either directly or using the Israelis as a proxy. This is the basis of the unholy alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia and America, with Mr Blair contributing a few choice soundbites.
The anti-Iranian “arc of moderation” may seem like another meaningless Blairism, not nearly as threatening as Mr Bush’s “axis of evil”. But this soundbite could unleash a disaster on the Middle East, beside which the war in Iraq would be a mere sideshow.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2530313,00.html
The implications from the execution of Saddam
Hussein are deeper than and wider than just
Iraq. See Article below:
QueEx
__________________________________________________
</font size>
<font size="5"><center>An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe</font size></center>
Anatole Kaletsky
The Times (London)
January 04, 2007
Most people think that the bungled invasion of Iraq, climaxing last week with the bungled execution-assassination of Saddam Hussein, will go down in history as the ultimate symbol of the Bush Administration’s hubris and incompetence. They should think again. With the dawning of a new year, the Bush-Blair partnership is working on an even more horrendous foreign policy disaster.
What now seems to be in preparation at the White House, with the usual unquestioning support from Downing Street, is a Middle Eastern equivalent of the Second World War. The trigger for this all-embracing war would be the formation of a previously unthinkable alliance between America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain, to confront Iran and the rise of the power of Shia Islam.
The logical outcome of this “pinning back” process would be an air strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with a renewed Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, aggressive action by American and British soldiers to crush Iraq’s Shia militias, while Saudi-backed Sunni terrorists undermined the increasingly precarious pro-Iranian Government in Baghdad.
Consider the ominous events that occurred in the Middle East and Washington over the holiday season, while most people were paying more attention to their turkeys and Christmas stockings. The first in this sequence of events was Tony Blair’s abrupt announcement that members of the Saudi Royal Family accused of taking bribes from British defence contractors would be exempted from the application of British law. To risk a confrontation with the Saudi Royal Family, Mr Blair asserted, would have jeopardised Britain’s security interests in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, as well as dashing hopes of progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This embarrassing announcement by Mr Blair was quickly followed by his Dubai speech, in which he called for an “arc of moderation” to “pin back” Iran’s advances in the Middle East.
The second event, almost simultaneous with Mr Blair’s bribery announcement, was the equally unexpected resignation of Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, on December 15. Prince Turki has long been a key figure in the Saudi security establishment, whose last abrupt career move occurred in the autumn of 2001, when he suddenly resigned as liaison between the Saudi Royal Family and the Taleban terrorists that they had been financing until just before September 11. Turki was a leading member of a faction in the Saudi Royal Family that has for months been advocating a more conciliatory response towards the Shia hegemony in Iraq, including an effort to open direct negotiations between America and Iran, as recommended by James Baker’s Iraq Study Group. The Turki group’s main rivals in the Saudi establishment have by contrast argued for much tougher military action against what they called the “Christian-Shia conspiracy” created by the US toleration of Iranian influence over Iraq.
The Saudi power struggle came into the open through an article published in The Washington Post in mid-December, by Nawaf Obeid, a Saudi security consultant ostensibly working for Turki, but actually closer to the hardliners. Obeid cautioned that if American troops were withdrawn from Iraq prematurely, in line with the Baker report’s recommendations, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene forcibly “to stop Iranian-backed Shi a militias from butchering Iraq’s Sunnis”. Turki immediately fired Obeid, but shortly afterwards was himself replaced by a hardliner.
Within Saudi Arabia itself, meanwhile, the anti-Iranian rhetoric is gathering strength. Take this example from al-Salafi magazine, quoted in The New York Times: “Iran has become more dangerous than Israel itself. The Iranian revolution has come to renew the Persian presence in our region. This is the real clash of civilisations.”
The link between Israel and Iran in Saudi thinking brings us to the third event in this chillingly unfestive sequence: the confrontation over nuclear proliferation between the UN Security Council and Iran. If Iran is now really hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, Israel has made it abundantly clear that it is equally hell-bent on stopping it — whether by diplomatic or military means. Whether Israeli bombing would in practice do serious damage to the Iranian nuclear programme is far from clear, but there are certainly hotheads in the Israeli Government and military establishment who are itching to try.
There is, however, one binding constraint on Israel’s freedom of action against Iran. This is the US. It is unlikely that Israel would bomb Iran without explicit American approval and it is certain that a US president would stop Israel if he believed America’s national interest demanded it.
That has been the situation until recently, since America has depended on Iranian-backed Shia politicians to prevent a total collapse of order and a humiliating Saigon-style expulsion of American soldiers in Iraq.
Although Israel has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, many Israeli politicians believe that they are entitled to punish Iran for its non-compliance with the treaty. For these trigger-happy Israelis, Iran’s backdoor influence over Washington via the Iraqi Shia has become a nightmare. The same is true of the Saudi princes. The Saudi Royal Family rules a largely Shia country on the basis of a fanatically enforced state religion whose senior spokesmen denounce the Shia as heretic scum. These feelings are entirely mutual — Iran’s mad mullahs hate the Wahhabis every bit as much.
Thus, if there is one country in the world more worried than Israel about an Iranian A-bomb, it is Saudi Arabia. And if there are two countries in the world with real influence on the Bush White House, they are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now both these countries are telling President Bush that he must pull the plug on Iraq’s Shia Government, tear up the Baker report, whose most important advice was to open diplomatic channels to Tehran, and prepare to attack Iran, either directly or using the Israelis as a proxy. This is the basis of the unholy alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia and America, with Mr Blair contributing a few choice soundbites.
The anti-Iranian “arc of moderation” may seem like another meaningless Blairism, not nearly as threatening as Mr Bush’s “axis of evil”. But this soundbite could unleash a disaster on the Middle East, beside which the war in Iraq would be a mere sideshow.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2530313,00.html
America, Britian, or Israel cannot do anything after the beatdown they took in 2006 if you looked up lame duck in the dictionary you'd see pictures of Blair and Bush.
Saddam's execution might set a precendent for dealing with war criminals which could lead to Bush and Blair facing a jury one day.
Saddam's execution might set a precendent for dealing with war criminals which could lead to Bush and Blair facing a jury one day.
gene cisco said:
TRUE ...TRUE...THAT's why you need al-jazeera , BBC and other european media. Getting the info from different source really gives perspective. And most importantly, you are able to see the obvious attempt to manipulate the public. It took awhile and I think that it's very easy now to distinguish between news and propaganda.
I remember how the apartheid style treatment of the Palestians were kept out of the public for so long...up until the intifada.
I mean if you think the ghetto is bad...I' ve research a little bit and it turn out that this PLACE IS AN OPEN AIR PRISON....just terrible.
On another note, I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY can keep this thing together. I THINK WITHIN 5 YEARS, something gotta give. And then we'll see HOW THEIR ALLIES will help them out ...
neo
nittie said:
The US has just as much blood on their hands as does Hussein. The only difference is that they are further removed from the violence. They'll also never be convicted for as long as the west rules the world (Saddam's problem was that his rule ended with the US invasion).
For those who hope to end world poverty I hope you realize that manufacturing has left north america because it's impossible to make the shoes we demand on US minimum wages. Coke sniffing models and actors are great for the economy because they keep the columbian economy poor but stable. Same goes for Nike shoes for overseas labour and SUV's for oil in the middle east. It's all conducive to "The American Way".
<font size="5"><center>Saddam Half Brother, Ex-Official Hanged</font size></center>
Right Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq's former revolutionary court, chants "God is Great" while being sentenced to death during his trial held under tight security in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, in this Sunday Nov. 5, 2006 file photo. Saddam Hussein's half brother Barzan Ibrahim and al-Bandar were hanged before dawn Monday, Jan. 15, 2007 Prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon said, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism. (AP Photo/David Furst, Pool, file). Left Barzan Ibrahim, half brother of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former intelligence chief, reacts in the dock after being sentenced to death during his trial held under tight security in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, in this Nov. 5, 2006 file photo. Ibrahim and the former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court were hanged before dawn Monday, Jan. 15, 2207, Prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon said, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism. (AP Photo/Scott Nelson, Pool, File)
Jan 15, 5:23 AM (ET)
Associated Press
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Saddam Hussein's half brother and the former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court were hanged before dawn Monday, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism.
In confirming the executions, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the head of one of the accused, Barzan Ibrahim, had been severed during the hanging in what he called "a rare incident."
But he stressed that all laws and rules were respected during the proceedings, choosing his words carefully after Saddam's execution became an unruly scene that brought worldwide criticism of the Iraqi government. Video of the execution, recorded on a cell phone camera, showed the former dictator being taunted on the gallows.
"Those present signed documents pledging not to violate the rules or otherwise face legal penalties. All the people present abided by the government's rule and there were no violations," he said, adding the hangings occurred at 3 a.m. "No one shouted slogans or said anything that would taint the execution. None of those charged were insulted."
Barzan, Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, had been found guilty along with Saddam of in the killing of 148 Shiite Muslims after a 1982 assassination attempt on the former leader in the town of Dujail north of Baghdad.
The announcement drew outrage from some in the Sunni community while majority Shiites who were heavily persecuted under Saddam's regime expressed joy.
Khalaf al-Olayan, a leader of the main Sunni bloc in parliament, demanded to see any video taken during the execution. It was not known if the government took an official video, as it did during Saddam's execution.
"It is impossible for a person to be decapitated during a hanging," he told Al-Jazeera television. "This shows that they (the government) have mutilated the body and this is a violation of the law."
"We want to see the video that was taken during the execution of the two men in order for them (government) to prove what they are saying," he added.
A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the information, said the families of Ibrahim and al-Bandar would collect the bodies later Monday.
"The two bodies are being held at a morgue at the present time," the official said, without specifying which morgue.
The executions reportedly occurred in the same Saddam-era military intelligence headquarters building in north Baghdad where the former leader was hanged two days before the end of 2006, according to an Iraqi general, who would not allow use of his name because he was not authorized to release the information. The building is located in the Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah.
The two men were to have been hanged along with Saddam on Dec. 30, but Iraqi authorities decided to execute Saddam alone on what National Security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie called a "special day."
Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged the government to delay the executions.
"In my opinion we should wait," Talabani said Wednesday at a news conference with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. "We should examine the situation," he said without elaborating.
On Tuesday, al-Maliki said that Khalilzad asked him to delay Saddam's execution for 10 days to two weeks, but added that Iraqi officials rejected the demand.
Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, along with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, had called on the Iraqi government to refrain from executing Ibrahim and al-Bandar.
The Iraqi foreign minister, meanwhile, called on Sunday for the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in what he said was a legitimate diplomatic mission in northern Iraq, but he stressed that foreign intervention to help insurgents would not be tolerated.
The two-pronged statement Sunday by Hoshyar Zebari highlighted the delicate balance facing the Iraqi government as it tries to secure Baghdad with the help of American forces while maintaining ties with its neighbors, including U.S. rivals Iran and Syria.
"Any interventions - or any harmful interventions to kill Iraqis or to provide support for insurgency or for the insurgents should be stopped by the Iraqi government and by the coalition forces," Zebari said in an interview with CNN's "Late Edition."
But he also stressed Iraq has to keep good relations with its neighbors in the region.
"You have to remember, our destiny, as Iraqis, we have to live in this part of the world. And we have to live with Iran, we have to live with Syria and Turkey and other countries," he said. "So in fact, on the other hand, the Iraqi government is committed to cultivate good neighborly relations with these two countries and to engage them constructively in security cooperation."
The U.S. military said the five Iranians detained last week in the Kurdish-controlled northern city of Irbil were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq. It was the second U.S. raid targeting Iranians in Iraq in less than a month.
Iran's government denied the five detainees were involved in financing and arming insurgents and called for their release along with compensation for damages.
"Their job was basically consular, official and in the framework of regulations," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Sunday. "What the Americans express was incorrect and hyperbole against Iran in order to justify their acts."
The Iraqis and the Americans, meanwhile, prepared for a new joint security operation to secure Baghdad as it faces spiraling sectarian violence.
Bush said Wednesday that additional 21,500 U.S. troops will head to Iraq soon to try improve the security situation mainly in Baghdad and the western province of Anbar.
At least 78 people were reported killed or found dead on Sunday, including 41 bullet-riddled bodies discovered in Baghdad. The U.S. military also said two American soldiers died Sunday from roadside bombs in Baghdad.
On Monday, three policemen were killed and two hurt when a roadside bomb targeted their car in a southeastern section of Iraq's capital.
---
Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this story.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070115/D8MLLCHO0.html
Right Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq's former revolutionary court, chants "God is Great" while being sentenced to death during his trial held under tight security in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, in this Sunday Nov. 5, 2006 file photo. Saddam Hussein's half brother Barzan Ibrahim and al-Bandar were hanged before dawn Monday, Jan. 15, 2007 Prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon said, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism. (AP Photo/David Furst, Pool, file). Left Barzan Ibrahim, half brother of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former intelligence chief, reacts in the dock after being sentenced to death during his trial held under tight security in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, in this Nov. 5, 2006 file photo. Ibrahim and the former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court were hanged before dawn Monday, Jan. 15, 2207, Prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon said, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism. (AP Photo/Scott Nelson, Pool, File)
Jan 15, 5:23 AM (ET)
Associated Press
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Saddam Hussein's half brother and the former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court were hanged before dawn Monday, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism.
In confirming the executions, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the head of one of the accused, Barzan Ibrahim, had been severed during the hanging in what he called "a rare incident."
But he stressed that all laws and rules were respected during the proceedings, choosing his words carefully after Saddam's execution became an unruly scene that brought worldwide criticism of the Iraqi government. Video of the execution, recorded on a cell phone camera, showed the former dictator being taunted on the gallows.
"Those present signed documents pledging not to violate the rules or otherwise face legal penalties. All the people present abided by the government's rule and there were no violations," he said, adding the hangings occurred at 3 a.m. "No one shouted slogans or said anything that would taint the execution. None of those charged were insulted."
Barzan, Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, had been found guilty along with Saddam of in the killing of 148 Shiite Muslims after a 1982 assassination attempt on the former leader in the town of Dujail north of Baghdad.
The announcement drew outrage from some in the Sunni community while majority Shiites who were heavily persecuted under Saddam's regime expressed joy.
Khalaf al-Olayan, a leader of the main Sunni bloc in parliament, demanded to see any video taken during the execution. It was not known if the government took an official video, as it did during Saddam's execution.
"It is impossible for a person to be decapitated during a hanging," he told Al-Jazeera television. "This shows that they (the government) have mutilated the body and this is a violation of the law."
"We want to see the video that was taken during the execution of the two men in order for them (government) to prove what they are saying," he added.
A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the information, said the families of Ibrahim and al-Bandar would collect the bodies later Monday.
"The two bodies are being held at a morgue at the present time," the official said, without specifying which morgue.
The executions reportedly occurred in the same Saddam-era military intelligence headquarters building in north Baghdad where the former leader was hanged two days before the end of 2006, according to an Iraqi general, who would not allow use of his name because he was not authorized to release the information. The building is located in the Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah.
The two men were to have been hanged along with Saddam on Dec. 30, but Iraqi authorities decided to execute Saddam alone on what National Security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie called a "special day."
Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged the government to delay the executions.
"In my opinion we should wait," Talabani said Wednesday at a news conference with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. "We should examine the situation," he said without elaborating.
On Tuesday, al-Maliki said that Khalilzad asked him to delay Saddam's execution for 10 days to two weeks, but added that Iraqi officials rejected the demand.
Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, along with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, had called on the Iraqi government to refrain from executing Ibrahim and al-Bandar.
The Iraqi foreign minister, meanwhile, called on Sunday for the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in what he said was a legitimate diplomatic mission in northern Iraq, but he stressed that foreign intervention to help insurgents would not be tolerated.
The two-pronged statement Sunday by Hoshyar Zebari highlighted the delicate balance facing the Iraqi government as it tries to secure Baghdad with the help of American forces while maintaining ties with its neighbors, including U.S. rivals Iran and Syria.
"Any interventions - or any harmful interventions to kill Iraqis or to provide support for insurgency or for the insurgents should be stopped by the Iraqi government and by the coalition forces," Zebari said in an interview with CNN's "Late Edition."
But he also stressed Iraq has to keep good relations with its neighbors in the region.
"You have to remember, our destiny, as Iraqis, we have to live in this part of the world. And we have to live with Iran, we have to live with Syria and Turkey and other countries," he said. "So in fact, on the other hand, the Iraqi government is committed to cultivate good neighborly relations with these two countries and to engage them constructively in security cooperation."
The U.S. military said the five Iranians detained last week in the Kurdish-controlled northern city of Irbil were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq. It was the second U.S. raid targeting Iranians in Iraq in less than a month.
Iran's government denied the five detainees were involved in financing and arming insurgents and called for their release along with compensation for damages.
"Their job was basically consular, official and in the framework of regulations," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Sunday. "What the Americans express was incorrect and hyperbole against Iran in order to justify their acts."
The Iraqis and the Americans, meanwhile, prepared for a new joint security operation to secure Baghdad as it faces spiraling sectarian violence.
Bush said Wednesday that additional 21,500 U.S. troops will head to Iraq soon to try improve the security situation mainly in Baghdad and the western province of Anbar.
At least 78 people were reported killed or found dead on Sunday, including 41 bullet-riddled bodies discovered in Baghdad. The U.S. military also said two American soldiers died Sunday from roadside bombs in Baghdad.
On Monday, three policemen were killed and two hurt when a roadside bomb targeted their car in a southeastern section of Iraq's capital.
---
Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this story.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070115/D8MLLCHO0.html
Similar threads
