Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for October, 2012

WikiLeaks cables portray Hamid Karzai as corrupt and erratic

Karzai thinks of himself as slicker than Americans. He thinks, he knows the American psyche and take Americans for a ride in his Kabuli taxi. He is under a delusion. He thinks, he has the Americans and Talibans, by their “kahoonas,” and plays both sides of the fence against the middle. This two-faced hydra sits in the lap of Taliban, while feeding cotton candy of his lies and flim flams the trusting nature of Americans. Little does this self-righteous and arrogant crook realize that America is a great nation, because of the smartness and dedication of its people, the Americans. When, the last American soldier leaves Kabul, the Taliban will make a Kentucky Fried Chicken of Karzai’s Kapporas. He will be hung from the ramparts of Kabul’s Mandi, by his tiny non-descript kahoonas taped on with Krazy Glue. While, his lunatic friends, the Talibans light a fire under his bald head. He triaipses around with his green chogha, as if he is the king of Pashtuns. He is very much mistaken. He will suffer the same fate as his predecessors, because, he is no different from them, rather he is worse than them. History will repeat itself. Najibullah, Babrak Karmal…followed by Hamid Karzai… RIP.

Diplomats describe Afghan president as weak, indecisive, paranoid and beholden to criminals to maintain power

Afghan president Hamid Karzai

WikiLeaks cables described Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, as ‘a stranger to the basics of nation building’. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

He may be vital to western plans in Afghanistan but Hamid Karzai is regularly described by frustrated diplomats and foreign statesmen as erratic, emotional and prone to believing paranoid conspiracy theories.

On some occasions Karzai’s own ministers accuse him of complicity in criminal activity, including ordering the physical intimidation of the top official in charge of leading negotiations with the Taliban.

In memos back to Washington, released by WikiLeaks, the current US ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, adopted a particularly weary tone when describing often bizarre meetings with the mercurial president.

In one in 2009, Karzai argued that the US intended to “divide Pakistan and weaken Afghanistan in order to pursue its fight against terrorist groups”; and suggested the US and Iran were working together to support his main political rival in the presidential elections. Eikenberry “pushed back hard” against Karzai’s claim in what appears to have been a heated exchange.

Eikenberry concluded it was unlikely Karzai would ever break his habit of blaming the US and its allies for Afghanistan’s troubles and not addressing his own shortcomings. “Indeed his inability to grasp the most rudimentary principles of state-building and his deep seated insecurity as a leader combine to make any admission of fault unlikely, in turn confounding our best efforts to find in Karzai a responsible partner.”

Eikenberry identified two competing personalities in Karzai. “The first is a paranoid and weak individual unfamiliar with the basics of nation-building and overly self-conscious that his time in the spotlight of glowing reviews from the international community has passed. The other is that of an ever-shrewd politician who sees himself as a nationalist hero who can save the country from being divided by the decentralisation-focused agenda of Abdullah [Karzai’s main rival in the 2009 election].”

Omar Zakhilwal, the much respected finance minister, told the Americans Karzai was “an extremely weak man who did not listen to facts but was instead easily swayed by anyone who came to report even the most bizarre stories or plots against him”. He said an “inner circle” of top ministers had developed a system to work together to influence Karzai when he started “going astray on such matters”.

Overall, “Karzai is at the centre of the governance challenge”, says a briefing paper written by the embassy for Robert Gates, the US secretary of defence, in late 2008. “He has failed to overcome his fundamental leadership deficiencies in decisiveness and in confidence to delegate authority to competent subordinates. The result: a cycle of overwork/fatigue/indecision on the part of Karzai, and gridlock and a sense of drift among senior officials on nearly all critical policy decisions.”

International statesmen who meet Karzai occasionally have also expressed concerns.Nursultan Nazarbayev, the president of Kazakhstan, said in a meeting with General David Petraeus last year:“Karzai is weak, but it’s better to keep him on.” In a conversation with John McCain in 2008, David Cameron said that “each year he had the sense Karzai’s sphere of influence was shrinking“.

Relations between Karzai and the British have long been strained. The cables identify the problem as a fundamental disagreement between the two sides about how best to pacify Helmand.

For Karzai the solution was to “bring the tribes to our side” by appointing a corrupt but powerful tribal bigwig as governor. The UK, on the other hand, believed clean and effective local government was the answer.

On several occasions the British thwarted Karzai’s plan to replace Gulab Mangal – the technocratic governor of Helmand praised to the skies by the US and UK – with Sher Mohammad Akhundzada, a leader of the Alizai tribe who served as governor of the province from 2001 to 2005.

Once Gordon Brown had to tell Karzai that “Akhundzada was not an acceptable alternative, given his history of corruption and involvement in drug trafficking” and that Karzai was being deceived about the state of Helmand by scheming palace advisers.

British opposition created more recriminations, with a bitter Karzai telling a district governor that Helmand “is not part of my administration” but is “controlled by foreigners”.

The cables reveal that Karzai first tried to reinstate Akhundzada, – described as a “known warlord and criminal” – three months after the appointment of Mangal in March 2008. There was another effort in 2009 when Karzai argued that gaining the support of Akhundzada’s Alizai tribe was key to gaining stability in Helmand’s most troubled districts, including Sangin and Musa Qala. Karzai argued with the US that it was better to have “a bad guy on your side” rather than him “working for the Taliban”. But in its analysis the US embassy said a “key underlying calculation” of Karzai’s was that Akhundzada could turn out his Alizai tribe to vote for the president in the 2009 election.

There are signs that the UK worried about Karzai’s lack of public appreciation for the British effort. In November 2008 David Miliband was recorded asking Karzai to write “an open letter to the British people” designed to reassure the UK public about the “Afghan project”.

Frustration with the Karzai family occasionally bubbles over among diplomats. The Canadian ambassador William Crosbie told his US counterpart in February that they must be “prepared for a confrontation with Karzai” to prevent the rampant fraud that wrecked the presidential elections happening again in this year’s parliamentary poll.

He said Canada would demand that the “international community … stand up for the silent majority or be blamed for letting Karzai and his family establish across the country the system of patronage and control that exists in Kandahar”.

But perhaps the most damning accounts of Karzai’s style of governing are from the president’s close colleagues. In 2009 Umar Daudzai, Karzai’s chief of staff, told the Americans he was “ashamed” of an incident in which Karzai pardoned five border policemen who had been caught transporting 124kg of heroin in an official vehicle.

The episode sent relations between Karzai and Washington into one of its periodic lows, with many assuming that Karzai had freed the men because their extended family had contributed to his re-election campaign. Speaking generally about the release of drug traffickers, Mohammad Daud, deputy minister of interior with responsibility for tackling illegal drugs, is quoted in a cable as telling assistant US ambassador Anthony Wayne that he had learned “some members of the president’s family had been receiving money from those seeking the pardon and release of convicted traffickers”.

Daud described their release as a “big psychological blow” to him and the country’s counter-narcotics police force.Masoon Stanekzai, a senior government official charged with disarming militias and “reintegrating” Taliban insurgents, is reported to have feared for his own life after defying Karzai’s many demands to remove two provincial election candidates from Helmand from a blacklist so they could stand.

Both were known drug traffickers and members of illegal militias.

Stanekzai told the embassy that he received threats and menacing visits to his office from the men, who on one occasion brought along a 54-man militia that Stanekzai was supposed to have disbanded.

The highly respected minister said the president himself was involved in the threats. The cable says: “Karzai himself has made no overt threats but he [Stanekzai] believes the president is behind a litany of visits Stanekzai has had by known warlords – including the two narcotics traffickers – accompanied by their private militias in the past two weeks.”

The incident was “an example of Karzai meddling in the elections by using intimidation to protect known thugs”.

Thursday 2 December 2010

No Comments

The Amazing Simplicity of President Harry & Bess Truman

 
The Amazing Sincerity Of Harry Truman
 
Harry & Bess Truman
Harry Truman was a different kind of President.
 
Truman
 
Harry Truman
was a different kind of President.  He probably made as many,
or more important decisions regarding the history of the USA as any of the other Presidents preceding him.
However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in,
which was in Missouri.
His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in
the White House,
they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952 his income was a U.S.Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72.
Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an ‘allowance’ and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After the new incoming President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves.
There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating,
“You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me.
It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.”
 
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing,
“I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award,
Congressional or otherwise.”
As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
 
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth.
Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices.
Political offices are now for sale.
 
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed,
“My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician.
And to tell the truth,
there’s hardly any difference!”

harry truman

Harry S. Truman (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was the 33rd President of the United States (1945-1953). The final running mate of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944, Truman succeeded to the presidency on April 12, 1945, when Roosevelt died after months of declining health. Under Truman, the U.S. successfully concluded World War II; in the aftermath of the conflict, tensions with the Soviet Union increased, the start of the Cold War.

 

Truman’s presidency was a turning point in foreign affairs, as the nation supported an internationalist foreign policy, in conjunction with European allies. Germany surrendered a few weeks after Truman took office, but the war with Japan was expected to last another year or more. Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan led to a speedy end of the war but remains controversial. Working closely with Congress, Truman assisted in the founding of the United Nations, issued the Truman Doctrine to contain communism, and passed the $12 billion Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. Wartime alliance with the Soviet Union became peacetime opposition, and theCold War began. He oversaw the Berlin Airlift in 1948 and the creation of NATO in 1949. When communist North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, he immediately sent in U.S. troops and gained UN approval for the Korean War. After initial success, the UN forces were thrown back by Chinese intervention and the conflict was stalemated through the final years of Truman’s presidency.

 

No Comments

WESTERN OPINION & VIDEO 2: Why do Muslims regard images of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) as blasphemous?

Muslims Will Never Tolerate Blasphemy against Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

The protests were made and demonstrations were staged by Muslims all over the world condemning the blasphemy movie made by US against their Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) which shattered the feelings of billions of Muslims and damaged the simple meaning of freedom of thought and speak.

The word ‘Islam’ is derived from the Arabic word ‘Salema’ meaning peace and purity. A Muslim is the person who believes in the presence of Allah (God), loves His beloved Prophet ‘Muhammad (pbuh) and his teachings of Islam (peace).

One of the roots of Islam is to create a society based on justice to everyone in order to establish the peace and prosperity of society.

The British philosopher and the noble prize winner ‘Sir Thomas Carlyle’ wrote about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his famous book ‘The Heroes’ as follows:

“It is a great shame for anyone to listen to the accusation that Islam is a lie and that Muhammad was a fabricator and a deceiver. We saw that he remained steadfast upon his principles, with firm determination; kind and generous, compassionate, pious, virtuous, with real manhood, hardworking and sincere. Besides all these qualities, he was lenient with others, tolerant, kind, cheerful, and praiseworthy and perhaps he would joke and tease his companions. He was just truthful, smart, pure, magnanimous, and present-minded; his face was radiant as if he had lights within him to illuminate the darkest of night; he was a great man by nature who was not educated in a school nor nurtured by a teacher as he was not in need of any of this.”

The blasphemous movie made and released by US is a clear intention and a planned part to hurt the innocent feelings of Muslims living in any part of the world.

The defenders of this blasphemous movie claim that it should be accepted in the name of the ‘freedom of thought and speak’ for every citizen.

But in fact, the freedom of thought and expression does not allow a person to hurt the feelings of someone living in the society.

It does not allow one to destroy and create a divide in the society and to deliberately invoke the feelings of extremism in the people; if it does then this kind of freedom should not be tolerated and laws must be made to keep people united and peaceful.

One of such examples is the ‘law of Holocaust’ in which millions of Jews were killed and in Europe, it is not lawful to speak-up against this Holocaust.

This law is reasonable and acceptable to everyone as to many people the Holocaust is a matter that hurts their feelings.

The Muslims also demand international laws to be made in order to control such blasphemous acts done by making movies, cartoons and speeches against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) which hurt the feelings of the greatest religious population in the world.

The US government is fighting the so-called ‘War of Terrorism’ in order to win the hearts of the people and to kill the roots of the terrorism and extremism but at the same time, it should take steps in order to eliminate such puppets in their own society who insult the feelings of the people and provoke religious terrorism and extremism as one can deduce from the worldwide peaceful protest recently by Muslims that they will not tolerate blasphemy against their beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

‘Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to people.’ Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

 

The issue of blasphemy is a hot issue that remains in news particularly in Pakistan. In 2010, a Christian woman Asia Bibi, who was charged with blasphemy in Pakistan, made the international headlines. But charging Asia Bibi under the blasphemy law did not apparently quench the radical thirst of the clerics of Pakistan. A Muslim cleric offered $6,000 to a person who would kill Asia Bibi. Tragically, the late governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who visited Asia Bibi in prison, was later gunned down by his own security guard, Mumtaz Qadri. Salman Taseer’s crime was to speak up for the victims of blasphemy law. The insanity continued unabated when after few weeks of the murder of Salman Taseer, a Catholic and Minister for minorities, , Shahbaz Bhatti, was assassinated allegedly over his stance on blasphemy laws. The issue of blasphemy has once again reared its ugly head: the death penalty imposed by anti-terrorism court against Mumtaz Qadri, the murderer of Salman Taseer, has been reversed.

The issue of blasphemy is not a new phenomenon. The instances of blasphemy are found throughout recorded human history. The Holy Quran, for example, points out very clearly that all the Prophets and Messengers of God were persecuted, harmed, abused and mocked, not only during their life time but also after their demise. “Alas for My servants! There comes not a Messenger to them but they mock at him.” (36:31) “Then We sent Our Messengers one after another. Every time there came to a people their Messenger, they treated him as a liar.” (23:45)

Noah, Abraham, Lot, Saleh, Shuaib, Moses and Jesus, peace be on them all, just to name a few, were all mocked and blasphemed by their enemies and opponents. Questions naturally arise: How did Prophets react to blasphemy? Did they ever punish the blasphemers? What was the end of those mockers and blasphemers?

The Holy Quran clearly speaks about the treatment of those mockers and enemies of God’s prophets; “And surely, Messengers have been mocked at before thee; but I granted respite to those who disbelieved. Then I seized them, and how was then My punishment!” (13:23) “And Messengers indeed have been rejected before thee; but notwithstanding their rejection and persecution they remained patient until Our help came to them. There is none that can change the words of Allah.” (6:35)

These verses make it abundantly clear and manifest that all the Messengers observed extreme patience whenever they were blasphemed; and they never tried to punish or respond to those blasphemers violently. All those mockers, blasphemers and enemies faced deadly consequences. Another common element in their stories, is that all those enemies were eventually punished by God Almighty, and this is one supreme reality that can never change; “There is none that can change the words of Allah” (6:35).

Alas! This blasphemy did not stop even at the time when the sun of eternal truth rose over the skies of the Arab peninsula and the world was soon to bask in the light of the message of Muhammad, may peace be on him. The one waited for thousands of years, prophesied by thousands of prophets, and for whom the whole world was created and who was the clear manifestation and reflection of the full glory of the Creator. The one who was titled by the Almighty God as “mercy for all the worlds”, our beloved Master and Lord, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw), endured every form of punishment, torture, persecution, blasphemy, mockery and torment suffered by the earlier prophets and messengers. He was called “the one most mean” (63:9), he was treated as a ‘liar’ (35:26), he was labeled as a ‘fabricator’ (16:102) and he was called as ‘madman’ (15:7).

He was also physically tortured, persecuted and blasphemed. “The Prophet was stoned by ruffians and vagabonds and was chased and pelted by urchins till the cobblestones of Taif ran red with his blood. And at the battle-ground of Uhud the Prophet was seriously wounded.” (Murder in the Name of Allah)

His followers were severely persecuted and the land became very tight and narrow for them. They were laid out in the blazing sun, heavy stones were put on their chests, they were dragged through the streets like dead animals and chattels, they were socially boycotted, and they were forced to live in a valley for three long and hard years. They were deprived of all their freedom, property and belongings. Their dead bodies were cut asunder; the liver of the Prophet’s uncle Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with him, was even eaten. Pregnant women were thrown off camels.

The Holy Quran states: “Verily, those who malign Allah and His Messenger — Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them an abasing punishment. And those who malign believing men and believing women for what they have not earned shall bear the guilt of a calumny and a manifest sin.” (33:58-59) How clearly the Holy Quran has mentioned the fate of the opponents of God and His Messenger that God alone has the authority to punish those who malign, mock or blaspheme God and His prophets. God did not permit anyone, not even the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) to punish such people.

Unfortunately, many people around the world including many Muslims believe that blasphemy is a worldly punishable act, and Muslims are duty-bound to punish mockers and blasphemers. They believe that if someone speaks against God, the Holy Muhammad (saw), the Holy Quran and Islam he must be punished with death penalty; However, the reality completely differs from such concepts and the Islam taught by our beloved Master Muhammad (saw) speaks of no worldly punishment whatsoever against blasphemy. No question of death or anything else for that matter. The Holy Quran has provided a clear guidance on this matter and states: “…when you hear the Signs of Allah being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they engage in a talk other than that; for in that case you would be like them” (Ch.4 v.141)

It should be noted that instead of punishing the blasphemers, believers are advised to leave the company of such people until they change their discussion.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) through his practices made it absolutely clear that there is no worldly punishment for blasphemy and the matter rests in the hands of Almighty Allah. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) once owed money to a Jew. The Jew came to him mistakenly thinking that the amount was overdue, and confronted the Holy Prophet (saw) and demanded his money using very harsh and blasphemed words and accused him of not honoring his promise. He also insulted the Holy Prophet (saw) and also his tribe. Hadhrat Umar ((RA), who was also there, became extremely annoyed and perhaps was about to strike him. The Holy Prophet (saw) stopped him for doing so and said: “Umar ((RA), you should have behaved differently”. He didn’t even let Umar (RA) to speak harsh words to the Jew. This was the Holy Prophet’s (saw) behavior when openly insulted and blasphemed in the company of his companions.

As mentioned earlier, when the Holy Prophet (saw) went to Taif for preaching them the message of God, they mocked at him, blasphemed him and tortured him and his whole body was ripped red with blood. God sent his angle to ask him if he wishes the whole village should be tore into pieces. That was an opportunity for him to say yes to teach a lesson to the rest that if anyone blasphemes him, he can be punished or destroyed. But, our beloved Master Muhammad (saw) instead punishing those mockers and blasphemers prayed for them to God “My Lord! Forgive them, because they don’t recognise me”.

The history of mankind also witnessed those moments when the Holy Prophet (saw) – the King of Peace, entered into Mecca as a victorious and declared an open forgiveness:: “By God, you will have no punishment today and no reproof” (Hisham). He forgave all his enemies including Ikrama son of Abu Jehal the leader of opponents and Hinda who tore the chest of the Holy Prophet’s (saw) uncle Hamzah   and ate his liver out of spite, after he was martyred during the battle of Uhad. He also forgave Habbar who had murdered several Muslims including the murder of the Holy Prophet’s (saw) daughter Zainab ((RA). He also pardoned Abu Sufyan, one of his greatest enemies who also led many wars against him.. One cannot describe in detail the enormities, atrocities, blasphemous behaviour committed against Islam and the Holy Prophet (saw). Yet how easily the Holy Prophet (saw) forgave them!

Let me also quote a particular incident which took place during the life of the Holy Prophet (saw), also briefly recorded in the Holy Quran, and alone can refute the idea of punishing the blasphemers. No Muslim can claim to know Islam more than the Holy Prophet (saw), so, let us have the true understanding of this issue from him directly and let us see how he treated with blasphemers.

“Before the Holy Prophet’s (sa) arrival in Medina, there was a prominent leader who by the consensus of Medinite, was rising to be their joint leader. His name was Abdullah Bin Obey Bin Salul. After the Prophet’s (sa) arrival things gradually changed and instead of Abdullah, the Holy Prophet (SAW) was accepted by the common consensus of people as their new leader. This made Abdullah Bin Obey Bin Salul extremely jealous. He went on giving voice to his injured feelings in one way or another. His behaviour was such that the other Muslims referred to him as the chief monaafiq, meaning the chief of hypocrites.

Once, when returning from an expedition which was overall a failure and all participants were extremely tired and disappointed, this man Abdullah, thought it a fit time to take his revenge. In the presence of a few people, he declared that upon returning to Medina, the noblest among them would turn out in disgrace the meanest of them. The message was clear and everyone knew what he meant. Hadhrat Umarra, upon hearing this, asked permission of the Holy Prophet (SAW)to kill this man; he said that the insult on the person of the Holy Prophet (SAW)was far too much for them to tolerate. But the Holy Prophet (SAW)did not allow any retribution.

It is reported that after this, Abdullah’s own son also approached the Holy Prophet (SAW)and said: “Oh Messenger of God, perhaps you thought that if you had permitted someone else to kill my father, I being his son, may harbour a private sense of revenge. However my father deserves this punishment for the insult he has hurled against you, so please permit me to slay him.” The Holy  Prophet (SAW)smiled and said: “No, there is nothing to be done. Your father will not be punished by anyone.”

They all returned to Medina and for many years this man lived in peace under the full protection of the Holy Founder (SAW)of Islam, against whom he had blasphemed. When he died, the Holy Prophet (SAW) decided to lead his funeral prayers. This was a bit too much for some of his companions. Umarra reports that he blocked his passage and said: “Is he not the leader of the hypocrites? Is he not the one about whom God has said that even if you ask forgiveness for him seventy times, he would not be forgiven? Then why O Prophet of God, who is the recipient of all these revelations, have you decided to lead his funeral prayer?’; The answer was: “Umar, get aside; if God has informed me that he would not forgive the hypocrites even if I prayed for them seventy times, I would pray much more than that in the hope that Allah will ultimately forgive them”. Such was the character of the Holy Founder (SAW) of Islam. He was a man of extreme compassion, a man of principles, a man who lived a life of truth and nothing but the truth.” (The Seal of Prophets Pages 33-34; edition 2003)

The teachings of the Holy Quran and the examples of the life of the Holy Prophet (saw) refute all the misconceptions and misunderstanding about the punishment of blasphemy by any human being or any state; and entirely leave the authority in the hands of God, and this is a supreme reality and commandment of God and ‘there is none that can change the words of Allah.’

 

Ref | Friday, September 28, 2012, 15:17 Beijing

 

No Comments

WESTERN OPINION & VIDEO 1: Why do Muslims regard images of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) as blasphemous?

As we see the continual protest over images and video which have been recently published of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) we see people falling into the two camps. We have those that follow Islam obviously falling into the camp of disgust and anger but we see non-Muslims trying to justify the images and video and making comparisons to their own religions.
This is the wrong action and we cannot reach an understanding with this viewpoint. Religion and culture are one in the same and just as we enjoy a tasty hamburger in the West to a Hindu this would be unimaginable.
The question we should be asking. Why are these images and video so offensive?
The Koran contains a general reference to the worshipping of idols being a “manifest error”, without referring to pictures of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH), but ancient oral traditions, called Hadith, quote Allah as saying it is “unjust” to “try to create the likeness of my creation”.
Another Hadith says that “all the painters who make pictures would be in the fire of Hell”. Islamic scholars are divided over whether it is ever permissible to depict the Prophet.
Controversies in recent days months and years have followed depictions which are mocking or seen and interpreted as disrespectful.
We can go back to 2005 when a Danish newspaper caused a worldwide storm of controversy when they publishing a set of cartoons.
The Jewish created cartoon show South Park followed, with a history of sacrilegious religious figures including Jesus (PBUH). (This begs one to ask the question, who whips up this anger?)
Back In 2006 its creators intended to feature Mohammed (PBUH) in another episode, inspired by the Danish cartoon controversy, but was banned from doing so by the Comedy Central network.
So it seems that not all images are protested. The problem being when the images depict something disrespectful, this is understandable.
We must also remember that the images we see on the news and the reports we hear are from a largely Christian based media.
We project Western ideas of freedom of speech onto a belief and culture that is not our own. Going back to the hamburger and the Hindu, Things seem very different sometimes ridiculous and sometimes a reaction is difficult to understand.
This is because it is not our culture and we must take a step back, we must rise above and understand.
The Western nations are more worldly wise we are subjected to many different faiths, customs and traditions we have learned how to coexist with things we don’t fully understand. Those in the largely uneducated parts of the Middle East have not and see these things as direct attacks.
We (The West) must be the better men.
If we do not we could head into a clash of civilizations and armed religious conflict.

 

No Comments

PROVOCATIVE VIDEO: Afghanistan:Where Empires Go to Die Genghis Khan could not hold onto Afghanistan.

Afghanistan: Where Empires Go to Die
Genghis Khan could not hold onto Afghanistan.
Neither will the United States

On September 7 the Swedish aid agency Swedish Committee for Afghanistanreported that the previous week US soldiers raided one of its hospitals. According to the director of the aid agency, Anders Fange, troops stormed through both the men’s and women’s wards, where they frantically searched for wounded Taliban fighters.

Soldiers demanded that hospital administrators inform the military of any incoming patients who might be insurgents, after which the military would then decide if said patients would be admitted or not. Fange called the incident “not only a clear violation of globally recognized humanitarian principles about the sanctity of health facilities and staff in areas of conflict, but also a clear breach of the civil-military agreement” between nongovernmental organizations and international forces.

Fange said that US troops broke down doors and tied up visitors and hospital staff.

Impeding operations at medical facilities in Afghanistan directly violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which strictly forbids attacks on emergency vehicles and the obstruction of medical operations during wartime.

Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker, a public affairs officer for the US Navy, confirmed the raid, and told The Associated Press, “Complaints like this are rare.”

Despite Sidenstricker’s claim that “complaints like this” are rare in Afghanistan, they are, in fact, common. Just as they are in Iraq, the other occupation. A desperate conventional military, when losing a guerilla war, tends to toss international law out the window. Yet even more so when the entire occupation itself is a violation of international law.

Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild and also a Truthout contributor, is very clear about the overall illegality of the invasion and ongoing occupation of Afghanistan by the United States.

“The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law,” Cohn, who is also a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and recently co-authored the book “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” said, “Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.”

Thus, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, along with the ongoing slaughter of Afghan civilians and raiding hospitals, are in violation of international law as well as the US Constitution.

And of course the same applies for Iraq.

Let us recall November 8, 2004, when the US military launched its siege of Fallujah. The first thing done by the US military was to invade and occupy Fallujah General Hospital. Then, too, like this recent incident in Afghanistan,doctors, patients and visitors alike had their hands tied and they were laid on the ground, oftentimes face down, and held at gunpoint.

During my first four trips to Iraq, I commonly encountered hospital staff who reported US military raids on their facilities. US soldiers regularly entered hospitals to search for wounded resistance fighters.

Doctors from Fallujah General Hospital, as well as others who worked in clinics throughout the city during both US sieges of Fallujah in 2004, reported that US Marines obstructed their services and that US snipers intentionally targeted their clinics and ambulances.

“The Marines have said they didn’t close the hospital, but essentially they did,” Dr. Abdulla, an orthopedic surgeon at Fallujah General Hospital who spoke on condition of using a different name, told Truthout in May 2004 of his experiences in the hospital. “They closed the bridge which connects us to the city [and] closed our road … the area in front of our hospital was full of their soldiers and vehicles.”

He added that this prevented countless patients who desperately needed medical care from receiving medical care. “Who knows how many of them died that we could have saved,” said Dr. Abdulla. He also blamed the military for shooting at civilian ambulances, as well as shooting near the clinic at which he worked. “Some days we couldn’t leave, or even go near the door because of the snipers,” he said, “They were shooting at the front door of the clinic!”

Dr. Abdulla also said that US snipers shot and killed one of the ambulance drivers of the clinic where he worked during the fighting.

Dr. Ahmed, who also asked that only his first name be used because he feared US military reprisals, said, “The Americans shot out the lights in the front of our hospital. They prevented doctors from reaching the emergency unit at the hospital, and we quickly began to run out of supplies and much-needed medications.” He also stated that several times Marines kept the physicians in the residence building, thereby intentionally prohibiting them from entering the hospital to treat patients.

“All the time they came in, searched rooms and wandered around,” said Dr. Ahmed, while explaining how US troops often entered the hospital in order to search for resistance fighters. Both he and Dr. Abdulla said the US troops never offered any medicine or supplies to assist the hospital when they carried out their incursions. Describing a situation that has occurred in other hospitals, he added, “Most of our patients left the hospital because they were afraid.”

Dr. Abdulla said that one of their ambulance drivers was shot and killed by US snipers while he was attempting to collect the wounded near another clinic inside the city.

“The major problem we found were the American snipers,” said Dr. Rashid, who worked at another clinic in the Jumaria Quarter of Falluja. “We saw them on top of the buildings near the mayor’s office.”

Dr. Rashid told of another incident in which a US sniper shot an ambulance driver in the leg. The ambulance driver survived, but a man who came to his rescue was shot by a US sniper and died on the operating table after Dr. Rashid and others had worked to save him. “He was a volunteer working on the ambulance to help collect the wounded,” Dr. Rashid said sadly.

During Truthout’s visit to the hospital in May 2004, two ambulances in the parking lot sat with bullet holes in their windshields, while others had bullet holes in their back doors and sides.

“I remember once we sent an ambulance to evacuate a family that was bombed by an aircraft,” said Dr. Abdulla while continuing to speak about the US snipers, “The ambulance was sniped – one of the family died, and three were injured by the firing.”

Neither Dr. Abdulla nor Dr. Rashid said they knew of any medical aid being provided to their hospital or clinics by the US military. On this topic, Dr. Rashid said flatly, “They send only bombs, not medicine.”

Chuwader General Hospital in Sadr City also reported similar findings to Truthout, as did other hospitals throughout Baghdad.

Dr. Abdul Ali, the ex-chief surgeon at Al-Noman Hospital, admitted that US soldiers had come to the hospital asking for information about resistance fighters. To this he said, “My policy is not to give my patients to the Americans. I deny information for the sake of the patient.”

During an interview in April 2004, he admitted this intrusion occurred fairly regularly and interfered with patients receiving medical treatment. He noted, “Ten days ago this happened – this occurred after people began to come in from Fallujah, even though most of them were children, women and elderly.”

A doctor at Al-Kerkh Hospital, speaking on condition of anonymity, shared a similar experience of the problem that appears to be rampant throughout much of the country: “We hear of Americans removing wounded Iraqis from hospitals. They are always coming here and asking us if we have injured fighters.”

Speaking about the US military raid of the hospital in Afghanistan, UN spokesman Aleem Siddique said he was not aware of the details of the particular incident, but that international law requires the military to avoid operations in medical facilities.

“The rules are that medical facilities are not combat areas. It’s unacceptable for a medical facility to become an area of active combat operations,” he said. “The only exception to that under the Geneva Conventions is if a risk is being posed to people.”

“There is the Hippocratic oath,” Fange added, “If anyone is wounded, sick or in need of treatment … if they are a human being, then they are received and treated as they should be by international law.”

These are all indications of a US Empire in decline. Another recent sign of US desperation in Afghanistan was the bombing of two fuel tanker trucks that the Taliban had captured from NATO. US warplanes bombed the vehicles, from which impoverished local villagers were taking free gas, incinerating as many as 150 civilians, according to reports from villagers.

The United States Empire is following a long line of empires and conquerors that have met their end in Afghanistan. The Median and Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols, British and Soviets all met the end of their ambitions in Afghanistan.

And today, the US Empire is on the fast track of its demise. A recent article by Tom Englehardt provides us more key indicators of this:

  • In 2002 there were 5,200 US soldiers in Afghanistan. By December of this year, there will be 68,000.
  • Compared to the same period in 2008, Taliban attacks on coalition forces using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) has risen 114 percent.
  • Compared to the same period in 2008, coalition deaths from IED attacks have increased sixfold.
  • Overall Taliban attacks on coalition forces in the first five months of 2009, compared to the same period last year, have increased 59 percent.

Genghis Khan could not hold onto Afghanistan.

Neither will the United States, particularly when in its desperation to continue its illegal occupation, it tosses aside international law, along with its own Constitution.

Dahr Jamail is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research

 

No Comments